Tucson Criminal Law Blog

Welcome

Sherick & Bleier is an AV-rated criminal defense firm located in Tucson, Arizona.  We aggressively represent our clients in both state and federal court in all types of criminal cases. For more information about our practice, visit www.shericklaw.com.

Fiesta Bowl Executive Set to Plead Guilty To Felony Charge in Campaign Contribution Scheme

 

The Arizona Republic reports that John Junker, the former CEO of the Fiesta Bowl, is set to plead guilty this Tuesday to a felony for his involvement in a fraudulent political campaign-contribution scheme. Under the plea bargain, Junker will admito soliciting campaign contributions from Fiesta Bowl employees, who were later reimbursed with bowl funds. This reimbursement arrangement violated Arizona state law.

 

While the Fiesta Bowl has been the subject of federal investigations, it appears that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona will not prosecute Junker on federal charges. Junker's attorney Stephen Dichter told the Arizona Republic in a written statement:

 

"Pursuant to plea agreements with the prosecuting agencies involved, Mr. Junker will continue his ongoing cooperation with them and their agents, as requested. No additional charges arising out of Mr. Junker's long tenure with the Fiesta Bowl will be brought against him by either the State of Arizona or the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona.”

 

Finally, the Republic notes that Junker's plea offers were reached before any formal indictments were issued. 

Federal Judge Strikes Down Louisiana Law that Banned Sex Offenders from Facebook

 

The Wall Street Journal reports that a federal judge recently ruled that a Louisiana law that barred sex offenders from using Facebook and other social media sites violated the First Amendment. Chief Judge Brian Jackson of the Middle District of Louisiana explained that the law imposed “a sweeping ban on many commonly read news and information websites,” in addition to social media sites.

 

The court found several things wrong with the Louisiana law. First, it had overly broad definitions such that sex offenders could be prohibited from using legitimate government websites – such as the website of the U.S. District Court. Second, the law required sex offenders who were no longer under court supervision to seek an exemption from a judge to legally access social media websites. Judge Jackson noted that courts lack jurisdiction to even grant such exemptions once an offender has completed a prison sentenced and post-release supervision.

 

It is interesting to note that Facebook supported the bill and other such bills that criminalize social networking by registered sex offenders. A spokesman for Facebook commented to the Wall Street Journal:

 

We take the safety and security of our users, especially the many young people on Facebook, very seriously. We have consistently supported bills that criminalize usage of social networking sites by registered sex offenders. Our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities already bars these individuals from using Facebook and we would welcome the potential of criminal penalties to strengthen these provisions

Did the Justice Department Mislead the Supreme Court on Immigration Policy?

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, a U.S. District Court judge in New York recently ruled that the Justice Department may have mislead the Supreme Court in 2009 about immigration policy. This ruling could have potentially huge and uncertain consequences.

In 2009, the Justice Department asserted in a Supreme Court case that when federal appellate courts ruled in favor of deported immigrants, the government's policy was to help those immigrants return to the U.S. and restore their status.

This purported policy played a prominent role in the court's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts cited this policy and ruled that immigrants deported erroneously would not suffer “irreparable injury” since the government would help them return if they later prevailed on appeal.

The problem, however, was that immigration lawyers had never heard of this federal policy. Immigration lawyers followed up by filing Freedom of Information Act requests, but both the Homeland Security and State departments answered that they had no information on the supposed policy. The Justice Department, though, stated that it had four pages of emails on the policy but refused to release the emails.

Following the Justice Department's disclosure refusal, the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law sued in federal court to get access to the emails. U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff agreed with the clinic, and wrote in a 20-page opinion that there is “substantial evidence that the judicial process may have been impugned if the Supreme Court relied upon what may have been inaccurate or distorted factual representation by the solicitor general's office.”

Now, what would happen if the Justice Department actually misled the Supreme Court?

Deborah Rhode, director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford Law School, said the implications could be serious.

“Lawyers for the solicitor general’s office carry special responsibilities to present a full and fair record,” she told Bravin. She said that either the solicitor general’s office should confess the error “or the policy should be revised to be what the government said it was.”

Two Tucson Gem Show Vendors Arrested For Selling Counterfeit Jewelry

The Arizona Daily Star reports that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested two gem sell vendors for selling counterfeit goods last Wednesday.

 

According to ICE, the two vendors sold knock-offs of Tiffany & Co., Chanel, Hermes and Coach at the Gem Mall pavilions. ICE agents seized almost $35,000 in cash and more than 2,500 pieces of jewelry from the vendors.

 

The arrests resulted from an undercover operation after agents were tipped off about counterfeit jewelry. When one of the agents tried to buy items from one of the vendors, the vendor allegedly told one of the agents that the merchandise was fake.

 

The vendors could face fraud, counterfeiting, money laundering and illegal enterprise charges in state court.

Facebook Defriending Leads to Double Murder in Tennessee

 

In the age of social media, defriending a person on Facebook can sometimes lead to hard feelings. In a recent incident in Mountain City, Tennessee, however, a Facebook defriending lead to a double murder.

 

The AP reports that Billy Payne Jr. and his girlfriend Billie Jean Hayworth defriended Jenelle Potter, 30, on Facebook. The couple had an 8-month old daughter together and they both lived with Billy Payne Sr. After defriending Jenelle, the couple complained to police that she was harassing them. Authorities confirmed that police have been involved in other cases where Jenelle believed she had been slighted by someone.

 

This time, however, Jenelle's father Marvin Potter, 60, and romantic interest Jamie Curd, 38, became involved in the dispute.

 

According to the AP, Billy Payne Sr. was the last person to see the couple alive before he left for work at 5:30 a.m. on January 31, 2011. Five hours later, a neighbor stopped by to pick up some mail and discovered Billie Payne Jr. and Hayworth shot dead in the home. The couple's 8-month-old baby was found unharmed in Hayworth's arms.

 

Marvin Potter and Curd were subsequently arraigned last week for the double murder.

Federal Prosecutors Drop Lance Armstrong Doping Investigation

 

Federal prosecutors announced late last week that they have dropped a two-year investigation of seven-time Tour De France champion Lance Armstrong. The investigation was centered on whether Armstrong and his teammates engaged in a secret doping program and thereby cheated their main sponsor – the U.S. Postal Service.

 

Armstrong – who has never failed a doping test and who has been tested 27 times since 2001 by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)– has been public ally accused by former teammates of doping. For instance, former teammate and Tour de France winner Floyd Landis stated in a deposition in 2010 that Armstrong not only used performance-enhancing drugs but also taught other cyclists how to avoid being caught. Landis claimed that he witnessed Armstrong and other teammates use illegal drugs to boost performance and endurance. In addition, former teammate Frankie Andreu also claimed that Armstrong admitted to using illegal drugs.

 

As a result of the dropped federal investigation, Armstrong will not face criminal charges in the United States. However, the USADA indicated on Friday that the end of the criminal probe did not mean that USADA would drop its own investigation.  

7th Circuit Disbars Criminal Lawyer for Missing Appeal Deadlines and Not Responding to Orders to Show Cause

 

In general, federal judges get upset when an attorney misses deadlines and fails to respond to orders to show cause. Milwaukee attorney Bridget Boyle-Saxton learned this lesson the hard way when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disbarred her from practicing in federal courts in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Boyle-Saxton was disbarred for failing to to follow up and meet deadlines in the appeal of a client convicted on drug charges. The court issued a series of warnings and orders to show cause, but Boyle-Saxton failed to reply to most of them and gave inadequate response to one. In addition, she twice sought more time to file a brief, but didn't meet the extended deadlines.

 

Boyle-Saxton indicated in a November 30, 2011 court filing that she had recently undergone surgery and had been busy in other trials. However, the Sentinel notes that Boyle-Saxton did not explain why she missed earlier deadlines, did not address the court's orders to show cause, and did not explain why she should not face discipline.

 

The Seventh Circuit's order stated:

It is apparent from this final motion for additional time that Boyle-Saxton elected to put work for other clients ahead of her obligations to Rodriguez and this court. That is unprofessional; lawyers have an ethical obligation to take no more work than they can perform. Moreover, counsel has never even offered an explanation for ignoring orders this court has entered, directing her to respond by specified dates.

 

The court also indicated that it would forward its order to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation and to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

 

As for the former client filing the appeal, that individual will have to get the trial court to vacate and reinstate his conviction so as to have a new chance to file an appeal within the time limits. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit expects that the new appeal will argue ineffective assistance of counsel.

Arizona Legislature Considering Bill that Would Limit Shackling Pregnant Inmates

 

The Arizona Republic reports that a group of bipartisan Arizona legislators is pushing for legislation that would limit how correctional facilities can shackle pregnant inmates.

 

The proposed bill would ban any state or county correctional institutions from using restraints on prisoners in their final trimester of pregnancy or during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery absent extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances would include medical staff requesting the restraints or corrections officers determined that that the woman somehow presented a flight risk.

The Republic notes that the proposed bill would mostly impact county jails because both the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons currently restrict shackling pregnant inmates.

California Supreme Court Rules that Sane Defendants May be Denied Self-Representation

The L.A. Times reports that the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a person could be competent to stand trial yet too mentally ill to act as his or her own lawyer.

 

The ruling comes from appeal filed by Andrew D. Johnson, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a bartender and hitting another person over the head with a chair. There, the trial judge ruled that Johnson was competent to stand trial as he understood the purpose and structure of the proceedings. However, the judge ruled that Johnson could not act as his own lawyer because he suffered from disorganized thinking, anxiety, and concentration problems.

 

Johnson appealed his conviction to the state's highest court on the grounds that the trial court violated his sixth amendment rights to self-representation. The California Supreme Court upheld the trial court ruling, and held that trial court judges may insist that defendants be represented if they suffer from “a severe mental illness to the point where [they] cannot carry out the basic tasks” necessary to mount a defense.

 

However, the court warned that California trial court judges should apply the self-representation standard cautiously. In particular, the court warned that trial courts should not deny self-representation solely because attorneys on both sides would ensure a more efficient or fair proceeding. 

Tucson Woman Who Stole $183,000 in Methadone Fees Sentenced

 

A Tucson woman who stole $183,000 in methadone fees from a social-service agency has recently been sentenced to five-years probation and ordered to pay restitution and investigation costs.

 

According to the Arizona Daily Star, Mary Ann Diaz worked at La Frontera in Tucson and was responsible for collecting fees from people seeking methadone and depositing those fees. Over more than a two-and-a-half year period between 2007 and 2010, Diaz would routinely take one or two days' worth of fees and use them to gamble. In April 2010, she was indicted on one count of fraud and theft. She pleaded guilty to theft in December 2010.

 

Diaz told her sentencing judge that she suffered from a gambling addiction and has sought help for it. She told the judge that she's been seeing a therapist and is involved in a gambling recovery group.