Monday, February 01, 2010

Arizona Hearing to go Ahead on YFZ Evidence, Conn Scolds Smith

I don't think the Judge is happy with Arizona playing games.
Judge Conn Scolds Matt Smith and keeps the hearing going:
"The State has filed a pleading entitled Stipulating offered by the State in which they offer to not use in evidence at trial in these cases any evidence seized at the Texas property in April 2008 and suggesting that the Evidentiary Hearing now scheduled on the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in that search on February 17, 2010, is no longer necessary. The Court does not know what, if anything, to read into the fact that this offer is being made in the form of a pleading filed with the Court rather than a communication with opposing counsel. The Court recalls that the defense had expressed concerns that information derived from evidence seized in Texas might be used in this case even if that evidence itsself (sic) were not used in this case. This Court, of course, has no authority to make the parties stipulate to anything. The defense motion was filed more than a year ago. The Court would have hoped that if an agreement were going to be reached eliminating the necessity of a hearing on the motion such agreement could have been reached a long time ago. The Court has had the impression that the State was not exactly sure what their position was as to evidence seized in the Texas search.

The Court hopes counsel can understand its predicament. The Court has set aside a week on its calendar to resolve this issue. The Court intends to conduct the evidentiary hearing as it would a jury trial, clearing its calendar and devoting its daily calendar to this hearing until it is completed. The Court has already made dozens of scheduling decisions in other cases, many involving parties who wanted to schedule trials or other hearings as soon as possible, based on the assumption that the week of February 16, 2010, was unavailable for scheduling purposes. Unless and until the Court is advised unequivocally that this hearing is unnecessary, it will assume that it is going as scheduled. It is much easier to cancel a hearing at the last moment than to try to reschedule it. However, the Court is advised unequivocally that this hearing is unnecessary, it will assume that it is going as scheduled. It is much easier to cancel a hearing at the last moment than to try to reschedule it. However, the Court hopes that the parties will have enough respect for the Court's scheduling concerns that if this hearing is going to be vacated upon mutual consent the Court will be so advised as soon as possible.

affirming the Evidentiary Hearing date of February 17, 2010, on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property."

Sphere: Related Content


Ron in Houston said...


Dammit - I cleared my schedule and until both of you two nitwits tell me this hearing is unnecessary - we're going to have it.

Geez, can't you two agree on ANYTHING?

The Pharisee said...

It's framed that way, to be polite as possible to Matt Smith, who is having his ass handed to him Ron.

Piccarreta WANTS to have this hearing, and in November, so did Matt Smith. In directing a comment, superficially at both parties, when it is only one party that is gumming up the works, he's really only directing it at one party.

Why is Matt Smith mortgaging his credibility in front of an Arizona Judge with whom he will have frequent commerce, when the only interests served by his antics are in Texas?

Judge Conn has cleared his week for a trial of the evidence to settle the issue once and for all, so as not to deal with it piecemeal in the trial, provided the evidence is inadmissible.

If Piccarreta is successful, I suppose a series of motions will be made prior to or early on in the trial to tag evidence Michael thinks are "Fruits of the Tree." I'm thinking this hamstrings Matt Smith rather severely or he wouldn't be playing obtuse.

Funny, it looks as though Texas is going to leave him out on the limb by not sending Doran and Long. He carries their water, they abandon him. Maybe there's a job waiting for him in Texas when this is all done.

duaneh1 said...

WTF! I was shocked that Conn is determined to proceed with the hearing as he has made it clear that ruling on the YFZ S.warrants' validity was something he did NOT want to do. Personally, if I was in his position, I'd feel the same way.
He knows the SW stinks to high heaven but if he tosses them in the AZ case he is going to catch heat from the Texas authorities and probably from anti-FLDS pundits like Mike Butkis and John Dougherty.

I would have thought he would have welcomed any chance to keep away from this mess. Since he brushed off Smith and is proceeding with the hearing absent any agreement with Piccareta, I'm thinkin' he has serious doubts about the warrants and in the absence of convincing evidence that the Texas rangers acted in "good faith", he is going to toss the evidence.
But who knows for sure?

The Pharisee said...

Read the Latest. There was a filing by Piccarreta in between Conn's ruling and Smith's lame "stip." It helps see why Conn is going ahead.

Conn is a good jurist from what I have seen. Unlike Walther, who changed a hearing about having a hearing into the hearing on the evidence last year, and jammed everything through to get it done in a weekend, limiting testimony on time and so on, Conn explains in his response (here in this post) what a real evidentiary hearing is. It is a TRIAL of the evidence.

This is why Walther's ruling will most likely start blowing up early on in the appeals process. She did not show respect, as Conn did for what an evidentiary hearing IS, a "Trail of the Evidence."

Jam Inn said...

Well, the approaching court date is solely for a Evidentiary Hearing per Judge Conn's response. What would the trial redress 1.) Crime is established there was a conviction, 2.) Territorial Jurisdiction is likesame been established, so all that is left is if there is probable cause to bring it to trial? If no Texas evidence is used to establish probable cause, then the motion to suppress and other concerns will not be reviewed. Further, Matt Smith clearly in his 24 Nov., 2009 response that,"The defense has set forth further argument[beyond Evidentiary Hearing] in support of their position which they are not entitled to due under the law".

Look for Matt Smith to present sufficient evidence to bring to trial that is not tainted by Texas in any way.

The Pharisee said...


I think you should read Piccarreta's response to Matt Smith's stipulation. While I don't think Piccarreta will get everything he asks for, he just might, and he might get so much that it's academic.

Essentially if Mr. Piccarreta gets his way, and he has largely been getting his way, the state of Arizona might have to get a whole new set of prosecutors and start gathering evidence, again. This time under the watchful direction of their adversaries in the process.

What's happened here is that Arizona went swimming in the mess Texas created. Having done so, it's possible they may not be able to rescue their case. It may be too difficult to separate that which was influenced by YFZ material, from that which was not. It might be that they can't use anything they discovered after they looked at YFZ evidence.

Jam Inn said...

You overlook the Red 'Escalade' evidence and that has been ruled a valid stop and admissible evidence. It's been described as a 'Treasure Trove'. You, also, overlook the Federal search warrant served on Bishop F. Merril Jessop, as the third search warrant at the YFZ, which has not been challenged but likely provides untainted evidence.

Matt Smith has produced his witness list and if Federal witnesses are listed then this 3rd search warrant could be at play.

I think as Smith has said all along he doesn't plan to use Texas evidence, if it isn't necessary why risk including it?

The Pharisee said...

I'm not overlooking it Jam. Since we heard that (for instance) there were "broken bones" at YFZ and then hints that boys may have been molested, early on in the raid, and it later turned out to be stuff and nonsense, I wouldn't be so sure that the "Red Escalade" evidence was damning.

Or it might be. Warren is hardly out of trouble. The upshot of all of this is that Warren may end up convicted of lesser charges, and his "proxy rape" conviction is by no means set in concrete. Look for a cascade of reversals if Allen Steed wins his contention that his "Crime" was not reported properly or if he is acquitted.

You are also overlooking the fact that Matt is now shown to be engaging in Houdiniesque contortions to avoid formal YFZ evidence exclusion by Judge Conn, who frankly seems inclined at this point, to rule that evidence out of his court.

Matt may end up convicting Warren of Something, and then letting him go on "time served." Call Rozita about that.

The "Federal Warrant" is based on the raid warrants. Prior to the raid the FBI clearly stated they didn't have anything. How come they could serve a warrant, if they didn't have anything? What made their warrant suddenly work? Wasn't it the presence of the suspect warrants Texas had?