Friday, January 29, 2010

(UPDATED) Arizona Says Officially: We will NOT use any evidence from YFZ

In a move severely damaging their case, and signaling they DON'T expect to win an evidence challenge, Arizona has given up YFZ evidence:
This has several effects, one is that the FLDS lose an avenue of appeal. Texas Gains (not Arizona) the advantage of not being shot in the back on YFZ evidence, by Judge Conn. Sheriff Doran will not go under oath in Court, neither will Brooks Long. There may be a dismissal of Arizona charges against Warren in the offing. Maybe not. That will have to wait.

I am told that there is an appeal already filed in the case of Raymond Jessop.

This is both good, and bad news. FLDS supporters or sympathizers would have welcomed a ruling on the evidence in Arizona. This will not happen now.

However, there is a wording at the end of the "stipulation," which says "at this TIME." This may mean that Judge Conn will go ahead with the hearing, so there will be no "later time." I'm sure all of this will come out soon.

Correction: It says, "At Any Time," meaning that the State is renouncing all intent to use YFZ evidence.

Still, I'd watch for them to try to "back door" the evidence in some other way, such as trying to use the trial records in Texas, or perhaps Michael Emack's "no contest" plea. This is where not being a lawyer really puts me in the dark.

Nevertheless it seems that various government entities REALLY don't want Long and Doran under oath on a witness stand. Why would that be?

All of this is very curious, because back on November 24th, Matt Smith and essentially said "let's dance" when it came to the evidentiary hearing, now he says "don't bother."

UPDATE: I am told if Judge Conn SIGNS the stipulation, the hearing is off. Apparently, he must agree to this stipulation.

Sphere: Related Content


I_hate_bigots said...

Too bad they still can not interview, under oath, Long and Doran.

I think the YFZ hoax discredits the current charge.

After all, if someone was willing to make a false rape accusation to gain entry to YFZ, wouldn't the same people be the type to make a false rape charge against Warren.

Jam Inn said...

Uh...both Ranger Long and Sheriff Doran were on the witness stand on the search warrant hearing in Judge Walthers court. Sworn testimonies are of record and no 'reckless regard nor intentionally untruthful' to overturn probable cause. So Judge Conn is showing good judgment and further witnessing is not needed.
Your beloved opinion is overruled.

The Pharisee said...

NO you frightful idiot. Matt Smith is CHICKENING OUT, after saying back in November, "let's Rumble" and have the evidentiary hearing, now he doesn't want to.

Your frightful witless stupidity is on display. This isn't a RULING, it's a SURRENDER. Clearly Texas is yanking Matt Smith's chain.

duaneh1 said...

Jamm Inn, What Arizona is saying is that they don't want to risk the YFZ evidence getting tossed because of a tainted SW.
What this means is that the SWarrants aren't nearly as cut and dry as Bluesey makes them out to be.

The Pharisee said...

Pretty much Duane, what Jam stupidly mistakes for a ruling is a STIPULATION on the part of the prosecution in Arizona. They are voluntarily saying they will not use the evidence from YFZ obtained during the raid.

Jam COULD follow the link to the Mohave County Courts site and read it for "Jamself," but Jam is more interested in needling and sound bites. It's a "Stipulation" Jam. By the DEFENSE. Conn's role is to READ IT.

Arizona is in fact not confident of the search warrant standing up and doesn't want it's case harmed by that fact, having the prospect of a new trial in the future looming over them if they do.

So they're going with evidence obtained by other means, evidence for instance, that might have been present in Warren's vehicle when he was arrested.

Conn is no fool though, and will be on the lookout for loopholes like "fruit of the tree" issues that Arizona may choose to ignore, and Conn will not. I am sure that if Conn thinks that Matt Smith is planning to back door some portion of the evidence by using a sort of "once or twice" removed generational distance from the raid, he will go ahead with the hearing.

Another thing: Why does Matt Smith care ? He doesn't owe Texas anything. He's only charging Warren in this matter, not the rest of the 11 men charged in Texas, just Warren. Matt Smith doesn't owe the voters of Arizona a conviction in those matters, Matt Smith owes only those citizens of Arizona. Why NOT go ahead with the hearing already on the slate in about two or three weeks? If he's not using the evidence, or planning to, why did he consent to fight FOR it in November.

Face it, Matt is being called off by TEXAS. He is subordinating the interests of Arizona, TO TEXAS. If there was any chance Warren would be found not guilty as a result of not using the evidence, wouldn't he want to have it? Why WOULD he care that the other FLDS defendants might have their cases bolstered?

Bottom line, if I were Matt and independent of Texas and Utah my thought would be "Heck no I don't think I'm going to use the evidence, but WHO KNOWS? We've done all this work, let's RUMBLE, let's find out, because if I can use it, and later find out I need to use it, or find out there is another charge with which to charge Warren, let's do it."

But Matt isn't doing that. Why?

And really, if the warrants are good, what's the problem? The warrants are good, aren't they? Texas?

Ron in Houston said...

Fundamentally all he's doing is putting into writing what he's been saying all along.

You can try to portray it in whatever light you want, but ultimately it's a big non-event.

And whatever happened with Rozita in Douglas County? You left me hanging.

The Pharisee said...

Ron, in November he said it was a good idea. If you think otherwise, I'd love to hear your take on the motion that's included above in the last link in the updated post.

As for Rozita, they won't answer me at Douglas county, batting me around between departments and not answering emails. I have the email addresses of two persons I have talked to about the issue. Surely it cannot take as long as 2 and a half days to find out why the case was "vacated" on Wednesday.

By the way, I'm deeply appreciative of the conversational tone, I'll try to keep it that way between us.

The Pharisee said...

I have updated the post to show that my information is, that Judge Conn must SIGN the stipulation for it to be meaningful. If he does so, the evidence hearing is off.

onthestreet said...

Folks, they still have ways of manipulating evidence and juries and judges and witnesses and laws and opinions, to the point that justice is just pointless.

The Pharisee said...


ME: "There may be a dismissal of Arizona charges against Warren in the offing. Maybe not. That will have to wait."

Liars at another blog say, this is what I said:

"A dismissal of the charges against Warren Jeffs in Arizona is imminent."

Saying there MIGHT be a dismissal of charges in Arizona, is not "the dismissal of charges" being "imminent."

Arizona has already reversed some actions against Warren due to a loophole in Arizona law that is being debated right now.

Reversals are already a matter of record in Arizona vs Warren Jeffs. There might be another one in the offing. Judge Conn has stated previously he didn't believe Matt Smith was going to stay away from YFZ evidence.

If the Judge is of a mind that Matt's case is dependent on YFZ evidence, and Matt forsakes YFZ evidence, isn't it possible that charges would be dropped?

Did I say they would be?

Did I say all of them would be?

Nope, didn't say that.

Ron in Houston said...


I really don't have a strong position on any of the FLDS issues.

Here's my take. This whole side show won't matter. There still will be a trial of Jeffs at some point in the future.

None of this will have any bearing at all on the trials of the YFZ defendants.

My honest two cents is that its all a way for Picaretta to make money by looking like he's being "tough."

The whole YFZ thing happened several years after Warren was charged. It's not an issue in Warren's trial. It looks great to try to make it an issue, but that's all smoke and mirrors.

The Pharisee said...

My take on it was that Piccarreta went after Matt Smith to stipulate the exclusion of YFZ evidence last year.

Conn kind of raised an eyebrow at that point and said something to the effect of "yeah Matt, why doncha?"

Piccarreta demanded that assurance in writing. Conn expressed doubts that Arizona would stay away from YFZ evidence in view of the charges.

Smith fought tooth and nail not to have Doran and Long subpoenaed. They got subpoenaed. Smith stipulated. Clear victory for Piccarreta.

The problem though for the FLDS in general was that the Arizona evidence hearing had evolved into a flanking maneuver for exclusive Texas charged FLDS defendants.

It would seem that if Conn signs the stipulation, he is taking the stipulation as a functional exclusion ruling for Arizona purposes, but I'm thinking it loses any potential of importance in Texas.

Two lines of attack are simply better for the FLDS in general but they seem to be paring down to one.

That is, if Conn signs the stipulation. I rather think he will. Conn gets what he wants, which is a nice clean case without any potential reversals, and without a hearing. That serves Arizona.

What worries me about this business is that Matt Smith might not be serving Arizona's interests, but instead, those of Texas. Arizona citizens should be concerned that Matt threw away evidence and cooperated with Texas, even though Texas would not cooperate with him.

Many people crow to me that Doran and Long would never answer to an Arizona subpoena, and that's not lost on me. Matt fought for the inclusion of the evidence, at least as a potential for over a year, and Texas stood him up at the prom, and he caved on it.

Basically, Matt got used.

Jam Inn said...

Pharisee you said,"This isn't a RULING, it's a SURRENDER".

I said,"So Judge Conn is showing good judgment and further witnessing is not needed".

I stated he is showing GOOD JUDGMENT. I never said it is a ruling?

Pharisee you later said, in part,"...Judge Conn must SIGN the stipulation for it to then be meaningful".

When Judge Conn signs the stipulation he, again, will be showing GOOD JUDGMENT. Does making a decision to sign the stipulation constitute a legal RULING? Doesn't one side receive an award that the other side does not?

Love, Frightful Idiot. Let's just go to trial.

The Pharisee said...


You're thicker than gear lube. You repeat the key evidence of your viscosity and can't even see it:

Jam: "So Judge Conn is showing good judgment and further witnessing is not needed".

You dense irritating anonymous skulking troll.

How can Judge Conn be showing JUDGMENT? This is a STIPULATION written by the PROSECUTION. I can understand confusing the prosecution with the judge if you're in Walther's court, but this isn't even Texas TROLL.

This is the stipulation that Piccarreta has been pounding Matt Smith for, for almost two years. Conn has been standing in the wings saying "Yeah Matt, why AREN'T you stipulating, in writing, that you won't use it if you're not going to use it?"

FINALLY, Matt Smith has offered the stipulation, in writing, that he will not use YFZ evidence. But you're missing something JAM. Conn didn't write it. There is no "judgment" on the part of Conn until he signs it.

The ONLY defeat involved here, for the FLDS is that they were about to have an evidence hearing a lot earlier in Arizona, that would have been fair. Now their locked into a slower appeals cycle in Texas, that is, provided Conn signs it.

Frankly I can't see any reason he won't, he's got an Arizona trial to worry about, not a Texas one. That's where his duty lies. The only way I figure he doesn't sign it, is that there's a loophole in the stipulation, and Conn sees it, and won't put up with it, and wants to dispose of the issue once and for all.