Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by Coldpizza, Aug 30, 2016.

  1. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,861
    Likes Received:
    8,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh my heavens, and KC is hanging her hat on him??? He can't back up a car, much less anything JW or TR said or did. I just can't imagine the BC putting any credence in any of this, what a complete waste of their time.

    Thanks so much for pulling it all together (how much hair did you pull out along the way? lol) - if you mentioned it before I've forgotten, when will a determination be made on this?
     
    Alice253, GarAndTeed, Niner and 2 others like this.
  2. salberg7

    salberg7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Very interesting H4M. I wonder on what basis KC convinced the BC to successfully reopen the complaint against Juan. This is all hearsay with no factual base. It’s all a bunch of “she said,he said”& quite literally so.
    I wonder if that $12K withdrawal was to pay for this gibberish. Seems the *** continues to think that it’s ok to waste everyone’s time and money on her. Again, ***’ MO is to destroy anyone in her path. So glad this sociopath is behind bars forever.
    Thank you so much Hope.
     
    Alice253 and GarAndTeed like this.
  3. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LAST on the Outing of Juror 17 epic ;); on the allegation that JM asked Wood, on the evening of March 3, to “dig up dirt” on juror 17.


    Brief version: Not supported by the timeline or available facts, and not credible. There’s no evidence in anything Karen Clark presented to the Bar (including in her appeal), other than Tammy Rose’s word, that Wood even knew 17’s name, much less that JM gave 17’s name to Wood, much less that he asked Wood to dig up dirt on 17. Not a single one of those Rose-Wood hearsay texts that KC repeatedly asserts are the holy grail proof of everything she’s charging even indirectly supports the allegations.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual questioning of jurors by JSS, after deliberations for the day concluded (from March 5, 2015 Court Minute Entries) JM had just argued his Motion to Strike Juror 17 and shown JSS Juror 17’s FB page.

    1. Juror 17 told JSS she had not read, seen, or heard anything about the case in the media, nor had she done research on the case or any of the topics brought up at trial.

    2. She knew of the Secret because she had read the book 2 years before the trial, but had not read the book or seen the movie since the retrial had begun. She had added the Secret to her “liked” list before the retrial began.

    3. She denied that she had researched the Law of Attraction.

    4. She acknowledged that she had a FB page, but she had never discussed these topics (Secret, LOA) on her FB page.

    5. She said she hadn’t been on her FB page recently because it “wasn’t a good idea,” but that she had gone there “the other day” to wish her sister in law happy birthday.

    -------------------------------
    By inference, then, before 4:00PM on March 3, JM (and Flores) had definitely already found 17’s FB page, already mentioned 17’s FB “likes,” including The Secret, already alleged that 17 had “researched” the Law of Attraction, and perhaps had already mentioned recent activity on 17’s page.

    It is not irrelevant that 17’s FB page was set to private, meaning, precious little of her page was accessible to anyone other than those she had actively put on her “friends” list.

    JSS denied JM’s Motion to Strike 17 for Cause (violating the admonition) on March 3, most likely after she had finished interviewing jurors individually. From JM’s testimony to JSS the next day, March 4, during a sealed hearing to argue his Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Strike 17, it is known that Flores and JM were once again researching 17’s Facebook page by 6:00PM, likely immediately following JSS’s denial of the Motion to Strike 17, and armed with 17’s denials to JSS that she had violated the admonition (see above).

    During the March 4 hearing, JM (and Flores) explained each of the attachments to the Motion to Reconsider. All of the attachments related to or were directly printed out from 17’s Facebook page. Both JM and Flores told JSS that all the attachments were the product of FLORES’ RESEARCH, under JM’s direction, that FLORES had conducted into 17’s Facebook page around 6PM on March 3.

    That JM had close to zero understanding of how Facebook works (any aspect of it whatsoever) was entirely obvious, and a point that Wilmott repeatedly used against JM in her rebuttal of his Motion to Reconsider. After JM couldn’t answer several of JSS’s basic questions about the significance (or lack of) the information from one of the attachments, JM turned over the floor to Flores to explain the Facebook research, and to reply to JSS’s questions.

    Based on the attachments Flores presented, *** I’m willing to bet any one of us could have done the same research in less than 2 hours, at the most. There simply wasn’t much information to find on a private Facebook page, and without a subpoena, no way to know whether or not juror 17 newsfeed included article headlines from her “likes” (which included Nancy Grace) , and if so, whether or not she had ever clicked on any of the links to those (trial related) stories.

    *** The attachments

    --a list of potentially relevant “likes” by 17 that suggested the possibility 17 was violating the admonition. The list included multiple local news channels and Nancy Grace, all of which JM stated that 17 had not “liked” until 2014.

    ---print outs of a sampling of articles/news on Nancy Grace’s page relating to PP2 that “likers” of NG, including 17, would have automatically received in their newsfeed.

    --print out of 17’s recent FB activity, including from a few days earlier (probably the birthday thing), and from the day before, March 3, almost immediately after 17 had been questioned by JSS (before 6PM), when she had added a specific person to her friends list.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    All this to say- what “dirt” on 17 exactly, then, do KC (and Tammy Rose) believe JM could possibly have asked Jennifer Wood to find, especially since that request would have to have been made by JM AFTER 6:00 PM on the 3rd, so AFTER Flores and JM would have already known they couldn’t get what they needed from 17’s Facebook page without a subpoena?

    No wonder Rose went wobbly in responding to KC’s questions about what kind of research Wood did for JM that night. IMO, the two specifics Rose told KC---that Wood told her it involved researching 17’s Facebook page, and that Wood had already been doing that research BEFORE she and Rose spoke by phone around 7:30PM --are flat out unbelievable.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CONCLUSION:

    IMO, the Bar would likely need nothing less than direct evidence to meet their Probable Cause standard of proof about these allegations (that JM leaked 17's name to Jennifer Wood and that he asked her to dig up dirt on 17) The Bar didn’t have any such direct evidence as of March 2018, when they reopened the Bar Complaint, but they had between March through the end of October 2018 to try to obtain it.

    There isn’t any way of knowing if the Probable Cause Committee conducted further investigations, spoke to additional witnesses, issued subpoenas, and/or received relevant information from the record requests KC made to MCAO (including JM’s work cell phone records), or if they simply concluded that what KC had already presented was sufficient to find Probable Cause about one or more of her litany of charges against JM.

    Direct evidence? Jennifer Wood’s testimony to Bar Counsel that the allegations are true (highly unlikely, and very impeachable in any case), or…….JM’s cell phone records, and in them, proof that JM called or texted Jennifer Wood on March 3. It wouldn’t look great if JM contacted Wood at all that day, given the straight out and non-stop urgency of everything unfolding that day. But, it would be pretty damning indeed if his phone records indicated he did contact her, especially if more than once, and at times that match up with KC’s version of events and Rose-Wood texts on the 3rd.

    Not definitive proof of the allegations (since there’s no way JM would have TEXTED anything incriminating), but solid enough circumstantial evidence to suggest improper, if not unethical conduct by JM.

    (PS- In case I need to make this clear: I do NOT believe ANY part of the allegations against JM relating to juror 17).
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
    Alice253, GarAndTeed, Niner and 4 others like this.
  4. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did the Bar Probable Cause Committee issue a Probable Cause Order based on “new” or additional information obtained after they re-opened the Complaint in March 2018?


    At the time of dismissing the original Bar Complaint, Bar Counsel Henley to Karen Clark about the “evidence” she offered in that complaint:

    Henley: None of the Rose-Wood text messages are admissible as evidence: the texts are hearsay. In fact, much of the testimony and evidence you’ve offered is hearsay, and inadmissible. The Bar requires direct evidence.

    You indicate you will be able to provide such direct evidence upon receipt of the (2 sets) of materials you’ve requested from MCAO. First, any material produced by MCAO relating to JM’s writing of a book would be irrelevant to this inquiry. Second, about the info and docs in support of your allegations regarding Ms. Wood and Ms. Wick (cellphone records, emails, records of any visits they made to MCAO, etc.): my investigation has largely resolved those issues to the State Bar’s current satisfaction.

    Last, Jennifer Wood denies your allegations, she lives out of state, and the Bar would have difficulty issuing her a subpoena; she would therefore not be available for trial.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    COULD NEW or DAMNING or DIRECT and/or ACTUALLY ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE COME FROM…..


    Info/materials KC provided the Bar’s Probable Cause Committee in her appeal (therefore, info Bar Counsel Henley didn’t have when investigating the original bar complaint:


    1. THIS? KC’s Interview with Melissa Garcia (PP2 juror 3).

    2. THIS? KC/Ralph’s interview with Clark Wood, Jennifer Wood’s ex-husband.

    3. THIS? KC’s (second ) interview of Sharee Ruiz (focused on “proving” that Wood had affair JM, and that JM had “used” Ruiz, Katie Wick, and Wood to bias media coverage against *** and to increase his own fame, and that he had leaked confidential/sealed info to them towards this end, and as a reward to them for their assistance).

    4. THIS? A Declaration (of facts) by Jennifer Willmot, including the “facts” listed below:

    * JM often “insinuated” MLDR was involved with Michael Kiefer, and these rumors” seem to have affected how the Court viewed her credibility.”

    * “MDLR never had an intimate relationship with any member of the media.”

    *” I heard from multiple sources that JM was having an affair with Woods. (spells her name wrong).”

    * I further heard JM met with Wood at MCAO on Sundays.

    * 17’s name was leaked immediately after mistrial.

    * The Court conducted an investigation into the leak.

    * The DT and JM were questioned regarding any info about leak.

    * During the questioning, rumors surrounding the trial were discussed. I mentioned several, including the JM-Wood affair.

    * I heard from several sources that JM spoke at a court reporter conference

    * During his presentation, JM denied “bedding” Wood.

    * I have learned of numerous text messages between trial bloggers indicating that JM had an affair with Wood, and that this relationship existed while the trial was ongoing (referring to the truly bizarre and nasty episode played out on SM by Ruiz and her husband about her phone supposedly being stolen, and the stranger-thief posting IM’s between Wood and Ruiz about Wood’s “affair” with JM).

    * Had I known about the affair while trial was ongoing, I would have filed Motions: to dismiss; to dismiss DP; to dismiss MCAO from representing the State; to dismiss JM from representing State; to terminate live media coverage (umm-there wasn’t any live coverage of PP2); for Discovery of JM’s file; and for Discovery of any communication between Wood and JM.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. THIS? Letter from Tom Ryan, 17’s attorney, to KC (responding to her request that he supply answers to 2 questions: whether there was sufficient evidence for 17 to have brought a civil action against JM for leaking her name, and, what he observed when Bar Counsel interviewed 17 during the bar investigation).


    From Ryan’s letter: Tammy Rose contacted him, told him Wood & JM were having an affair, and that JM had leaked confidential trial info to Wood during the trial. He took her phone (offered to him by Rose), did forensic report (a printout) of texts, IM’s and emails, and read them. He also hired a PI to do “witness interviews in the matter.”

    Says under Rule 11 of Civil Procedure, a reasonable inquiry must be done, and there must be a “good faith belief” that the facts available are sufficient to file a complaint. “This standard doesn’t require absolute proof of the charge before filing” (a civil lawsuit). Ryan says that “ based on this standard, a jury could conclude JM provided 17’s Facebook page in retribution for her being the (jury’s) lone holdout.”

    Ryan: I met with 17 about her filing charges against JM, but she didn’t want to go through the ugliness again unless I could guarantee her anonymity. I couldn’t. So she declined to file charges.

    (About his observations of Henley interviewing 17): Henley interviewed 17 for an hour (in November 2017). “I discussed my concern (with Henley) that JM, a seasoned prosecutor, didn’t stop the judge from making the error of interviewing 17 in front of family and counsel.


    6. THIS? Additional witness interviews undertaken between March-October 2018, when the Bar Probable Cause Committee took up the Bar Complaint?


    KC’s witness list, given to Henley in May, 2017 (in original order):

    Tammy Rose; Sharee Ruiz; Sandra Weber; Christine Beswick; Michael Kiefer; Beth Karas; Jean Casarez; Jane Valez Mitchell; Clark Wood; (JM’s actual girlfriend); Willmott; Nurmi; MDLR; Judge Stephens; Maricopa County DA Bill Montgomery (JM’s boss’s boss); Melissa Garcia; Tom Ryan (juror 17’s atty); juror 17.

    (Note---what? Jennifer Wood isn't on the list? :D)

    During the original Bar investigation Henley interviewed: Melissa Garcia, Sharee Ruiz, Juror 17, and Tammy Rose. Henley also had to have communicated in some way with Jennifer Wood and with Katie Wick, because he indicated to KC that each had denied all the allegations.

    ------------------------------------

    Short answer to all the above possibilities of new evidence being the reason for the Probable Cause Order: IMO: NO. AND, NO, NONE OF THE ABOVE.

    UNLESS the Committee didn't agree with Henley about the utility of obtaining JM's cellphone records, AND the records were obtained, AND the records proved JM had contact with Wood that was unequivocally unethical, OR provided evidence that JM had lied to the Bar during the investigation. IMO: HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
     
    Alice253, GarAndTeed, Niner and 3 others like this.
  5. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IN REPLY & IMO, AND IN ABSOLUTE CONCLUSION:

    1. The allegations against JM are bogus, can't be proven, and IMO, many are so transparently false and speculative as to be violations of the attorney professional code of conduct by Karen Clark, ethics attorney.

    2. Bar Complaints very rarely result in disciplinary action at all, much less disciplinary action that threatens the good standing of a practicing attorney. The odds don't favor JM being sanctioned significantly, no matter the ultimate findings of the Bar Disciplinary Committee, UNLESS it can be PROVEN that JM leaked 17's name to Wood, OR that he tried to get information about the sitting jury from Melissa Garcia, OR that he lied to Henley, and about something MATERIAL (directly related to an allegation).

    3. That said, bar complaints are in part political, and JM clearly has a great big 'ole bulls-eye painted on his back. The gnashing of teeth about JM has been loud since the beginning of the *** trial, and deafening since he published his book. His boss, Bill Montgomery, is an elected official, and by all accounts, a political animal. If Montgomery ever withdraws his support for JM, JM is dead meat.

    Will there be a point for Montgomery when one more complaint against JM is too many?If so, is this the one? This is the first complaint against JM, after all, that also potentially sullies Montgomery's office, the MCAO. JM allegedly having an affair is one thing, JM allegedly repeatedly allowing his girlfriend into MCAO after hours and cavorting with her on his desk is perhaps another.

    4. It is also possible that intra-Bar politics and institutional differences are at play, and will influence the outcome for JM. The Probable Cause Committee seems very willing/determined to throw the book at alleged offenders; the Disclipinary Committee seems more inclined to slap wrists and extract money from those alleged offenders.

    So...who knows?


    About *** and attorney fees and the alleged fund being used-or not-to pay Karen Clark. That's another who knows what is actually going on, except that there is no doubt at least one scam is involved. :D

    About Tammy Rose. Until this bar complaint misery, I hadn't watched Rose's "Obsessed Trialwatcher" thingy she still tries to sell as a $25 CD, but that is available for free on YouTube.

    I watched it. It's a complete waste of time, a piecing together of PP2 trial video (some of that I swear Rose must have shot herself, in violation of court orders), chit chat with 3-4 trialwatchers outside the courthouse (you likely know them all), chit chat with Jennifer Wood as the 2 carpool to trial, and solo film of Rose, chit chatting gossipy style as she sits on her bed or at her kitchen table.

    But, watching it did bring several things into focus. Rose wasn't Wood's "mentor," and she didn't seek out or respond to Wood as a friend. Rose made a beeline to Jennifer Wood at the beginning of PP2 because she wanted to use Wood. Wood knew the trial. Rose didn't. Wood had a significant SM following. Rose didn't. Wood was regularly being interviewed by national media, Rose was a local traffic reporter with no first hand knowledge of the trial or anyone involved in the trial.

    Tammy Rose walked into PP2 having already decided she could profit from it, by producing a video relating to the trial , one with the "different" twist of focusing on "obsessed" trialwatchers. She included Wood in the video, IMO, because she needed a known draw. Wood was it.

    Rose rushed that DVD out for sale the same day the mistrial was declared. And.....she couldn't believe the response to this project she had been working and counting on for months. She sold 300 copies of the DVD, at most, and was savaged on SM for trying to profit off the trial, especially so quickly, and especially so transparently.

    Meanwhile, "pseudo-journalist" (KC's term for Wood) Wood landed an interview with the PP2 jury foreman, and her SM following kept increasing.

    There isn't any mystery as to why Rose was so jealous and resentful of Wood that she was willing to try to destroy her, and there isn't any mystery as to why Rose took a few twigs of speculation and tried to sell them as a bonfire of evidence that would at last bring her fame and fortune.

    Rose is probably lucky, actually,that 99.4% of once- interested *** trailwatchers moved on years ago. ;)
     
  6. salberg7

    salberg7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Again thank you so much for explaining all this post trial “hoopla”. It’s a bunch of garbage. I wonder when the complaint against JM will be dismissed. You are correct in that this is all bogus hearsay charges. Only MCAO can subpoena JM & JW’s phone records and per your post they appeared to have done this already.

    I wonder what KC’s motivation is in all this. Unless she saw dollar signs - aware the killer has an “Appeal Fund” and wants to get paid by that source, figuring it was relatively easy money to be had. Now the killer’s mother opens a ******** page to pay the $12K balance back to the Appeal Fund.

    “About *** and attorney fees and the alleged fund being used-or not-to pay Karen Clark. That's another who knows what is actually going on, except that there is no doubt at least one scam is involved. :D“ to
    quote H4M....this entire situation is a huge scam. I hope it backfires. And if KC doesn’t get her fee from Sandy/Sue’s “Fund”, I am hoping KC too is “chit out of luck”. Unless she took the case pro bono.

    Another waste of the taxpayer’s money - State of Arizona taxpayers - specifically- spent on this true “***”.

    Death and destruction in all that *** touches. I’m still happy she didn’t get the DP though. This is her last “free ride” for an appeal paid for by the state unless she is granted PCR from Habeus Corpus.

    Thanks and keep up the good sleuthing Hope!
     
    Alice253, MsJosie, GarAndTeed and 2 others like this.
  7. Colie

    Colie Active Member

    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    43
  8. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,861
    Likes Received:
    8,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks Collie (and thanks again Hope for all of your diligent work).

    Granted Kiefer wrote it, but that article is unsettling.

    Is Katie working for the county attorney's office? It can't be Jen and those were the two named in KC's complaint.

    Wonder why JM's attny stepped out, he seemed to be doing a great job for him.
     
    Alice253, MsJosie, Niner and 2 others like this.
  9. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the update & for keeping up on the latest legal/court news.

    I can't access the Kieffer article (used up my free's doing the bar code stuff), and Kiefer's article seems to be the only one out there.

    Could you (or someone else) please summarize what's up? What materials not turned over by MCAO? Why? What is being sealed? Why? Who is telling the media any of this?

    Geevee- do I understand you correctly that JM's attorney QUIT??!(was it still Rhodes?). Likely not good, not good at all if that's accurate. :(

    (Katie Wicks? Yes, one of the two was said to be working at MCAO, as a paralegal perhaps? Or law intern? Must be Katie. Why is she being brought up by Kiefer?)
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    Alice253, MsJosie, Niner and 2 others like this.
  10. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never mind. Found another way to read K's article. Wrote & lost a response to it; will try again later.
     
    Alice253, GarAndTeed, geevee and 2 others like this.
  11. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,861
    Likes Received:
    8,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looking forward to your response, Hope. :) Yes, Katie Wick is who I was referring to (couldn't think of her last name off the top of my head when replying), now that you've read the article my question makes sense. lol I don't get why Kiefer wasn't naming names, its not like all of that hasn't become public info.

    On most if not all of the online news sites that limit articles, if you delete your cookies it normally sets the clock back to zero.
     
    Alice253, salberg7, Hope4More and 2 others like this.
  12. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SOME PERSPECTIVE ON KIEFER’S (ALARMIST) ARTICLE (a long but still incomplete version, as shorter is more difficult & time-consuming. ;))

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “ If the (bar charge) against a lawyer is found to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyer may be referred to a diversion program, required to pay restitution, assessed costs, issued an admonition, reprimanded, suspended or disbarred.”

    (From “The Disciplinary Process,” by the State Bar of Arizona)


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WHAT'S GOING ON? AND, HOW BAD IS ALL THIS? AND, WHAT'S TYPICAL?


    March 9, 2018. The Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee ( PCC ) issued an order vacating the dismissal of Karen Clark's Bar Charges against JM, and directing the State Bar “to conduct further investigation in this matter and to report the outcome of that investigation (to the PCC) for consideration and disposition.”



    AZ BAR DISCIPLINARY (ABD) PROCESS: “The Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee decides whether there is enough evidence to continue on to formal proceedings or whether another course of action is appropriate. Recommendations may include: diversion, probation, restitution, admonition, reprimand, costs, probable cause to file a complaint, or stay.

    If there is enough evidence to continue to formal proceedings, the committee will issue a probable cause order. Both the lawyer and complainant (Karen Clark) are notified of the recommendation and are given an opportunity to provide a written response to the Committee.”


    November 5, 2018. The PCC finds probable cause to file a complaint against JM (the “probable cause order”).



    STATE BAR STATEMENT (November 2018)

    “The state Bar intends to file a complaint alleging that Mr. Martinez violated (rules of professional conduct) by knowingly making false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter (and) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”


    From Kiefer article, more details about the probable cause order, from a statement by the Bar’s spokesperson (somewhat paraphrased & condensed):


    “The order was based upon some of the allegations raised in the original bar charge. These allegations included that JM gave a 3rd party (Wood) confidential and sealed information, INCLUDNG the identity of a juror (17). In addition, the Committee found probable cause that JM provided FALSE INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY during the Bar investigation REGARDING THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIPS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH THIRD PARTIES, INCLUDING A MEMBER OF THE MEDIA (singular-so only Wood), AND A DISCHARGED JUROR (Melissa Garcia, PP2 juror 3). “

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ABD PROCESS: “ Once a probable cause order is issued, bar counsel (Craig Henley) prepares a complaint, and represents the State Bar in the formal disciplinary proceedings. Formal proceedings begin when bar counsel files a complaint with the Disciplinary Clerk. (Note: this hasn’t happened yet).

    (JM’s) answer is due within 20 days after service of the complaint. After the answer is filed, the matter is set for a settlement conference and a hearing. Mandatory settlement conferences are held before the hearing. Bar counsel and respondents often enter into consent agreements to settle a matter without a hearing.”



    Kiefer: “ The same day (as the probable cause order was issued) Bar Counsel Craig Henley wrote to JM’s attorney, Donald Wilson, informing him that JM could agree “to discipline by consent.” That is, he could enter into a sort of plea bargaining.”


    PROCESS: see above. What Henley offered JM was the chance to accept a discipline OF HENLEY’S CHOICE, settling the matter. Accept Henley’s offer, or proceed to the next step of having a formal complaint filed against him, followed by a formal hearing (mini-trial).

    IMPORTANT TO KNOW: Whatever discipline Henley proposed, it could NOT HAVE BEEN DISBARMENT. The Bar’s rules do not allow Bar Counsel to unilaterally “offer” that ultimate sanction.


    PROCESS: “If no agreement is reached, a contested hearing is held before a hearing panel which includes the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, a lawyer member and a public member. Following a hearing, a written report containing findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order regarding sanction is filed and is final subject to the parties' right to appeal. The hearing panel can dismiss the charges, order diversion, admonition, probation, costs, reprimand, suspension, or disbarment. Either party may appeal the hearing panel's order to the Supreme Court.”

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HOW THE LAST PROBABLE CAUSE PROCESS WORKED OUT FOR JM (reposting, additional/new info incorporated).


    1. A Bar Complaint was filed by a pack of defense attys, accusing JM of a litany of prosecutorial misconduct charges during 10 or so of his trials; the Bar trimmed down the number of trials to 5.

    (What is different this time: none of the current charges/allegations against JM are about how he conducted himself in the courtroom, where as a prosecutor he is allowed discretion as to how he tries his cases, and other than blatant ethical and legal violations such as not turning over discovery, etc., largely given the benefit of the doubt by appeals judges and the Bar. The charges he’s facing now are less subjective, and he won’t be accorded any automatic deference).


    2. The Probable Cause committee ADMONISHED JM and recommended that he be given a one-year PROBATION. JM refused to accept either the admonishment or being put on probation, and instead requested a formal disciplinary hearing.

    (What seems to be different this time: the PCC itself recommended a formal disciplinary hearing, rather than “offering” JM any “informal” disciplines such as admonishment or probation).

    What is NOT different: According to Kiefer (so, may or may it be true or accurate), JM’s attorney has indicated JM will choose/has chosen to reject Henley’s proposed sanction.


    3. How the formal disciplinary hearing played out last time:


    Craig Henley represented the Bar; JM was represented by Rhodes, “one of the best atty discipline defense attys in AZ.” The Presiding Judge was William O’Neill.

    (This time: Henley and O’Neill would be there, in the same positions, JM would be represented by Donald Wilson, an attorney discipline defense attorney considered JUST AS SUPERB as Rhodes ).

    Henley put defense attys for 3 of the 5 cases on the stand. Judge O’Neill restricted the answers of each to either YES or NO. A former US Atty for AZ (Paul Charlton) was called as expert witness. Charlton slammed JM’s courtroom conduct as “unethical and inappropriate.”

    Rhodes called a single witness, former AZ Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Zlaget, who testified that he himself had been as aggressive as JM, and that every trial atty he had known had done the same, then tossed in “and I’ve known the best.” Rhodes rested. O’Neill and the 2 committee panelists left the room, deliberated for literally less than a minute, came back in, and dismissed the case.

    (This time: I don’t think a disciplinary hearing on the current allegations would be as quick, or as painless for JM; certainly not on a personal level).
     
  13. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    KIEFER’S ARTICLE, SQUARE ON


    1. Potentially alarming, if any of the allegations related to Wood or Garcia are true, and if Kiefer is accurate (though he should NOT have access to confidential records of an ongoing Bar investigation):

    That Bar Counsel Henley, who had just weeks before dismissed the charges against JM himself, interviewed JM for the first time in February 2018, and that during the interview, JM denied having affairs with “either of the media women” (Katie Wicks and Jennifer Wood).

    If accurate, this interview happened after the Bar dismissed the charges, and after Karen Clark appealed, but BEFORE the probable Cause Committee reinstated the charges against JM.

    Kiefer asserts that after interviewing JM, Henley-not the Probable Cause Committee—deposed Wick, Wood, AND JM’s long-term girlfriend—all for the first time. Kiefer includes Melissa Garcia on the list of those deposed by Henley. If so, it would have been the second time Henley interviewed Garcia.

    Last, Kiefer asserts that the Bar subpoenaed JM’s “phones.” (doesn’t specify if Henley did in February, or the Probable Cause Committee did so later on).
    ------------------------------------------

    2. Kiefer says that Bill Montgomery “completed an investigation of internal allegations against JM and disciplined him based on these findings.” Kiefer’s writing is garbled as to the next point, but if I understand correctly, the Bar issued a subpoena to MCAO for the records of that internal investigation.

    Whether in response to the subpoena or not, Montgomery turned over those records to the Bar in September 2018 (the Probable Cause Order followed in late October 2018).
    Relevant:

    --the investigation wasn’t necessarily related to any of the Bar charges.

    --if the investigation did relate to the Bar charges, what was being investigated were whatever aspects of the allegations that involved MCAO policies and rules and expectations. Possible examples: allowing non-MCAO visitors in after hours; allowing non-MCAO visitors to access rooms containing confidential trial files/exhibits/etc.

    --using plain common sense: Montgomery had the ability and the right to access JM’s work cell phone & computer records, as well as MCAO visitor and call logs, at a minimum, and he almost certainly questioned JM directly (Not sure what access he might have had to JM’s personal cell phone records).

    JM was DISCIPLINED, not fired. What are the chances JM would still be working for MCAO if Montgomery believed JM had anything to do with 17 being outed --a criminal offense, or if he believed JM had grossly unethical communication with Melissa Garcia, thereby potentially tainting ***’s penalty retrial? My guess: zero chance.

    Kiefer seems to imply that the Probable Cause Order was issued at least in part because of what was in the records of MCAO’s internal investigation of JM. He also implies that JM’s attorney Rhodes quit representing JM because of what the Bar was uncovering (who knows?), and that Montgomery turned over the investigation records because he was no longer supportive of JM (who knows, but IMO very doubtful that full support was withdrawn, see NOT FIRED).


    3. Kiefer says that MCAO turned over “847 documents” to the Bar and requested/was granted that these documents be put under seal. The request to seal doesn’t necessarily mean there is anything of great significance in the documents, much less info that is so damning to JM that he or MCAO is trying to keep it from being known to the public.

    Perhaps some of those docs relate to MCAO’s internal investigation of JM (thus the seal)? AND/OR:

    In the course of her original Bar Charge against JM, KC had requested MCAO turn over several sets of docs. As of the time of her appeal of the dismissal of charges (January 2018), she still hadn’t received them.

    What KC requested included: MCAO rules, logs, etc. about non-MCAO persons visiting MCAO; any and all MCAO rules, docs and communication related to JM’s book writing; and, the phone and all other records related to JM’s communication with both Wood and Wick. The phone records request was a bit complicated. One request was for phone records from JM’s WORK phone-a straight forward request, legally, and if Kiefer is correct, the Bar did subpoena and receive JM’s work phone records.

    The second request was for phone records from JM’s PERSONAL cell phone. According to KC herself, the only way the Bar could obtain JM’s personal cell phone records (by request) would be to first prove that JM “used his (personal) phone for a public purpose.”

    To prove that JM did so, the Bar would, at minimum, have to prove that JM invited Wood to MCAO after hours, and shared his Arias case file with her while she was there, or that he shared confidential trial info with Wood at MCAO or elsewhere, and/or that he requested and received trial-related “assistance” from Wood, at MCAO or elsewhere.

    ----------------------------------------------------
    4. About the “ripple effect” if JM is sanctioned that Kiefer hopes for:

    -- Tom Ryan, 17’s ex-attorney, says he now has grounds to “make claims” against not just JM, but MCAO as well, and that he will be “revisiting claims.”

    Ryan needs a client to revisit those claims, and 17 has already said she does NOT want to pursue those claims, or to be further involved at all. Second, Mr. Ryan, an attorney, presumably is aware that JM has been accused of many bad things but has not yet had a trial or acknowledged guilt or been found guilty of ANY of those charges.

    --Good lord, Kiefer is intent upon spinning any and all accusations against JM as being potentially THE THING that will, at long last, warrant overturning ***’s conviction and/or her sentence. DREAM ON, KIEFER.
     
    Alice253, kimpage, GarAndTeed and 4 others like this.
  14. salberg7

    salberg7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That article is indeed unsettling.
    I cannot believe that JM would do anything illegal to get a death penalty for the ***. Unless JM got caught under the spell of the fame he achieved from prosecuting this trial.....& slipped up.
    I am hoping that’s not true.
    Why would the Bar reopen the complaint after it was dismissed? It was reopened after JM’s personnel file was received by the Bar? If JM was disciplined long ago about his method of interaction with female staff & then up comes this new allegation, it can appear to the Bar that JM has a certain pattern of behavior and base this on JM’s prior warning?
    I do agree that Montgomery would have already fired JM if it was proven JM did indeed contact juror 17, so there’s that fact.
    But why is this continuing? There must be something found in discovery that we don’t know about.
    I can’t believe JM wouldn’t report a dismissed juror who sent him exotic pics of herself to his superiors. Maybe he did not and that’s the issue?
    Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    I don’t know.
    Does JM have cases scheduled to prosecute? Has there been any decrease in his caseload that you can see, Hope? I would have to believe these allegations would cause Montgomery to minimize JM’s trial work if they were serious. Usually in active disciplinary cases of any sort the accused’s workload would be diminished until the case is completed and a verdict or final determination has been made. Montgomery wouldn’t want to place any cases in jeopardy due to the complaints against JM thus diminish Juan’s caseload.
     
  15. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I absolutely don't believe JM did anything improper, much less illegal, to secure a DP during PP2.

    The worst thing I see any evidence at all of him doing, and the evidence isn't solid, would have been if he did communicate to Wood on March 3 that the drama of the morning was about a single holdout (and unnamed) juror. That info was sealed. If he told Wood about it, he did wrong. That's an IF. I spent a lot of time analyzing the likelihood he actually identified 17 to Wood. Conclusion: I don't believe he did.

    2. I've tried to explain the bar complaint process, to put this complaint against JM in perspective. Why would the Bar reopen the investigation? For a number of reasons, most of them having nothing to do with having received/uncovering incriminating evidence against JM.

    The most succinct way of saying this is what matters most, like in any legal action, is the burden of proof that must be met. Henley dismissed because he said the burden of proof Clark had to meet was "probable cause" (that the allegations were true).

    The basis for Clark's appeal was that Henley had abused his discretion by using the wrong burden of proof, and that only the probable cause committee could determine if probable cause existed. Looks like she was right. That alone would have led to the complaint being reopened.

    3. JM didn't report receiving the nudies from juror 3. Henley chastised him in the dismissal letter for not having done so. So, that issue by itself isn't new or a new problem for JM.

    4. Why is the Bar still pursuing JM? Because the attorneys filing complaints against him are relentless, because, as I've explained, the prob cause committee seems to play bad cop to the disclipinary committee's & Bar Counsel's good cop, and yes, it is possible the Bar uncovered something we don't know about that the prob cause committee believes justifies asking that JM receive significant sanctions.

    5. I don't know anything about JM's caseload, but I'd be surprised if Montgomery is decreasing it. Too many cases, too few attorneys, and unless Montgomery is prepared to fire JM, or believes JM's bar license might be suspended for any length of time, no reason I can think of why Montgomery would.
     
  16. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,861
    Likes Received:
    8,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Respectfully snipped for specificity

    I don't believe (for a minute) that JM would do anything to risk having a death penalty verdict overturned (had he succeeded in getting that). Not for love, money, notoriety nor nookie.

    Hope, what is the time frame on this? I think you mentioned some dates but they have passed out of my memory.
     
  17. Niner

    Niner Long time Websleuther

    Messages:
    33,119
    Likes Received:
    68,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ((((((Sister Geevee))))))

    From memory (you've been warned ;)), I think JM has 20 days to respond after the probable cause order is filed with the Bar's disciplinary clerk. As far as I know, the order hasn't even been filed yet.

    The most likely reason why the order hasn't been filed yet (if that's accurate) is Henley is giving JM time to consider his "offer" of sanction, and/or JM is considering/has decided to accept the discipline & put an end to this bar complaint (no matter that his atty is quoted as saying he "couldn't imagine" this not going to "trial" (a full disciplinary hearing).

    If JM is insisting on a full hearing, best guess is that we won't know the initial result for several months down the road (perhaps longer, since holiday season is approaching). And, JM can appeal to the AZ Supreme Court whatever is handed down.
     
  20. salberg7

    salberg7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well this eases my mind that Montgomery is allowing Juan to prosecute a DP case.
    But Juan is between a rock and a hard place so his enemies are winning, to a degree. Per H4M, Henley is giving Juan time to accept what is essentially a plea bargain vs file go to trial.
    I wonder what Juan will choose. Continue to spend loads of time and money defending himself in this ongoing suit or simply take his lumps and move on?
    It’s really terrible that prosecutors- many of whom are indeed the “good guys” and with a proven track record of putting away the “bad guys” - are pursued essentially by those who don’t like the prosecutors style - even when that style is effective. But in a way it’s good that there are those willing to fight for their own principles as well.
    But Juan is only human, after all. And he’s not perfect either.
    Henley did rebuke Juan for not reporting the nudes? Are you certain? Then what else didn’t Juan report?
    And also I can’t believe he would contact Jen Wood at all! Why would he do so? Let’s hope it wasn’t on March 3. That would be a huge kerfuffle.
    And Wilmott is on record that if she heard they were having an affair she would have brought it to the attention of the court and this is a good thing to know.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice