DOCSLIB.ORG

The Arizona Courts Summary Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Arizona Courts Summary Report THE ARIZONA COURTS SUMMARY REPORT •• History, Structure and Operation State Capitol Phoenix, Arizona J Ji - PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT JAMES DUKE CAMERON, Chief Justice FRED C. STRUCKMEYER, JR., Vice Chief Justice JACK D. H. HAYS, Associate Justice WILLIAM A. HOLOHAN, Associate Justice FRANK X. GORDON, JR., Associate Justice ... BY ·-.,, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS NOEL K. DESSAINT Administrative Director of the Courts 'i."H r, '~ i~ · :,!'; r:·· '. ~;~:./'" DECEMBER, 1977 \ " Arizon:a, S1Treme Cant±. Adro',nis±rnrtive Ditec±o sc_\,&'. HY1 ~~ THE ARIZONA COURTS SUMMARY REPORT ~,,,,,,._,, -- ... , E .,,.,,.... ,:~~~ \;n ('0 ''•• ~,q, i,, ~111\ I*,--- . ~r·,:,,-,, * 'I I I \ ~,..,,,.,~ IIW,l/1'1)/'rl,'1: ~,~ l ,, 7?. ~I •• ,,~b • \.'VI ,,~, OF t,.9- / 1'.\.''''"''~ History, Structure and Operation ARIZONA DEPT. OF LIBRARY ARCHIVES & PWBLIC RECORDS SEP 1 6 1999 State Capitol Phoenix, Arizona This publication was partially supported by Grant Number 76-149-0 II E-C(a) awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice. ~ IS O()tUMIHH 1$ l" HI ,ROl't:ATY I• 01 T .. [ MUMBlfl 66368·~- DEPARlMENT o, LIBRARYANDA8.CHJVES JAN ., 1978 - AA l ~ONA - ,.,c1,vo 1 Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona. Seated: Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr. , Vice Chief Justice; James Duke Cameron, Chief Justice; Jack D. H. Hays, Justice. Standing: William A. Holohan, Justice; Frank X. Gordon,.Jr., Justice. /\ I 0 "'4.-r__J \ , cl -' ' , (I~: C ·;,-1?,., I r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT . 1 INTRODUCTIONS ..... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. ... .. .. 2 THE CONSTITUTION . ..... .. .... ..... .... ..... .. 3 1910 . ....... .. ....... ... .. ........ ..... .. 3 MODERN COURTS AMENDMENT-1960 .... ......... 4 MERIT SELECTION-1974 . .. .. .. .. .... 5 THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES .. .. .... .. .. .. 6 CURRENT SUPREME COURT OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES ... ................ .... ... ..... .... 8 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR .......... .. ...... .. ... 9 CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT ..... ... .............. 9 STATE JUDICAL EXPENDITURES .... ................... 10 SUPREME COURT STATISTICS ..... ............. ...... ... 10 CASE FILINGS-BY TYPE, 1952-1976 .... .. ..... .. ... 11 CASES TERMINATED, 1912-1976 . .. ....... .. ..... .. 12 SUMMARY CASE ACTIVITY, 1970-1976 . .. .. .. .. 13 CASE ACTIVITY-BY TYPE, 1970-1976 .... ... .. ... 14-17 COURT OF APPEALS ...... .. .... ..... ... .. .. ...... .. ... 18 COURT OF APPEALS STATISTICS . .... ... .. .. .. ....... 19 DIVISION 1-SUMMARY-CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1976 . 20 DIVISION 1-CASE ACTIVITY-BY TYPE, 1965-1976 .. 20-23 DIVISION 2-SUMMARY-CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1976 . .. 24 DIVISION 2-CASE ACTIVITY-BY TYPE, 1965-1.976 .. 24 -26 COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS ... .. ..... 27 TH E SUPERIOR COURT . ......... .. ............. .. ... .... 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUPERIOR COURT STATISTICS . ..... ..... ......... .. .. 29 FILINGS, 1942-1964 .............. .. .... .. ......... 30 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1976 SUMMARY .. .. 31 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1976 SUMMARY .. ... .. 32 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1975 SUMMARY . .. .... 33 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1974 SUMMARY ... ..... 34 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1973 SUMMARY . .. ...... 35 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1972 SUMMARY . ....... 36 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1971 SUMMARY .... 37 APACHE COUNTY .......... ............. .. ....... 38-41 COCHISE COUNTY ..... ..... ............ ..... ... 42-45 COCONINO COUNTY .... .............. .. .. 46-49 GILA COUNTY . ..... ...... ...................... 50-53 GRAHAM COUNTY ... .. .... .. ...... .... .. .... 54-57 GREENLEE COUNTY ... ... ...... .. .. .. ... .. .... 58-61 MARI COPA COUNTY .... ... ... .... .... ... 62 -65 MOHAVE COUNTY . .......................... ... 66-69 NAVAJO COUNTY ............ .. .. ............... 70-73 PIMA COUNTY ............... .. .. ......... ...... 74-77 PINAL COUNTY .... ... ....... .. .. ............. 78-81 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ...... ... ................ 82-85 YAVAPAI COUNTY ........ .... .. .... ... ......... 86-89 YUMA COUNTY ..... ....... .. ................... 90-93 THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND MUNICIPAL COURTS . 94 COURTS OF NON-RECORD, STATISTICS ... ... ...... .... 95 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STATISTICS .... ... ....... 95-97 APPENDICES APPENDIX I, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES .......... 98-103 APPENDIX II, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES .. .... 103-104 APPENDIX Ill, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTORS AND APPELLATE CLERKS .......................... 105 APPENDIX IV, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES . .... .. 105-107 APPENDIX V, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS ............ ...... 108 APPENDIX VI, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONS ON APPELLATE AND TRIAL COURT APPOINTMENTS .... 108 STATE OF ARIZONA JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT SUPREME COURT Chief Justice* Vice Chief Justice* 3 Justices 6 Year Terms Ariz. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 3 COURT OF APPEALS 12 Judges - 6 Year Terms Division I - Phoenix Division II - Tucson Chief Judge* & 8 Judges Chief Judge* & 2 Judges 3 Departments (A, B & C) Presiding Judge* & 2 Judges Ea. Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Counties: Apache, Coconino, Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz Yavapai, Yuma Ariz. Const., Art. VI, Sec. l; A.R.S. § 12-120 SUPERIOR COURT 73 Judges - 4 Year Terms Presiding Judge Each County** I-- Maricopa 35 Coconino 2 Navajo 2 I--- Pima 15 Yuma 3 Gila 2 Cochise 3 Pinal 3 One each : Apache, I. Yavapai 2 Mohave 2 Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz Ariz. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 10, 11 JUSTICES OF THE PEACE CITY MAGISTRATES 84 Judges - 84 Courts (Precincts) 4 Year Terms 90 Magistrates 70 Cities Maricopa 18 Coconino 5 Pima 5 Pinal 12 Navajo 5 Graham 2 City Charters, Apache 4 Yuma 6 Greenlee 3 A.R.S. 22-402, Yavapai 7 Gila 5 Santa Cruz 2 22-403 Cochise 6 Mohave 4 Ariz . Const., Art. VI, Sec. 32 * Elected by Their Members *'~ Appointed by the Supreme Court Date: Nov. 16, 1977 1 INTRODUCTIONS The following statistical and historical summary The quality of justice can never be measured by of the first 65 years of the Arizona Judiciary shows the number of cases decided by a court. In addi­ the steady increase in the work of the Arizona state tion, case statistics do not fully demonstrate the court system since statehood. The increase in cases complete work of the judges and supporting per­ reflects not only the State's spectacular increase in sonnel. We are, however, in an era in which the population but the increased complexity of our demands for information are great and the uses of society as compared to the simpler and less hur­ that information are many. Statistical data is neces­ ried life of the Arizona Territory. sary for managing, planning, budgeting and policy formulation. Such information is also necessary to Statistics, however, cannot adequately portray foster a better understanding of the work and func­ the people behind each case that is filed with the tions of the judicial branch of government. court. These statistics are but cold representations of the drama of a trial, the trauma of a sentence, or Important historical developments in the Arizona the joy of an adoption proceeding. Statistics that Judicial System have been emphasized here. An show a judicial system becoming more congested attempt has also been made to present the avail­ and delayed must be viewed in light of the human able statistical data reflecting the work and growth needs and desires behind each case. It is only of the courts. The statistics contained in this report then that we can appreciate the need for accurate are based upon information maintained at the Su­ information which will enable us to administer the preme Court and on reports received from the needs of today's courts and the people they serve Arizona courts. In some instances statistical infor­ and to plan for the future. mation was not available, or. was not considered sufficiently reliable for publication in this report. Because of time and personnel restraints, we The lack of uniformity in some of the statistics is were unable to present in this volume a complete a result of differences in maintaining or collecting statistical history of each county. Starting with the the information. Annual Report covering 1977, we hope to update each year the statistics for one or more counties. An analysis of the data contained in this report We should have a complete set of statistics for has not, for the most part, been made but the each of the State's 14 counties by 1984. report will serve as a basis for future comparisons and analyses. It will also be used as a base for fu­ Thanks are due to many people who helped pre­ ture annual reports. pare this Summary Report: the county clerks and court administrators who cooperated; William L. Since a statewide annual report has not been McDonald, Deputy Administrative Director of the published since 1963, Chief Justice Cameron has Courts; Mrs. Faye Jennings, Financial and Statistical directed the present Administrative Director to re­ Clerk for the Administrative Director's Office; Mrs. sume publication of an annual judicial report com­ Marjorie C. Manson, Secretary, for cheerfully typing mencing with 1977. Inasmuch as the Supreme Court the copy; Dr. John Goff, Professor of History at wishes to more accurately reflect the work of the Phoenix College and author of Arizona Territorial judicial system, pending case inventories have been Officials I, The Supreme Court Justices, 1863-1912 required at every level of the court system, in­ (1975), for his help in getting this project started; cluding the Supreme Court. These
Load more
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

112 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE of DELEGATES, Petitioner, V
    No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate; DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; RYAN FERNS, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— MARK A. CARTER Counsel of Record DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 707 Virginia Street, East Chase Tower, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 357-0900 mark.carter@dinsmore.com Counsel for Petitioner January 8, 2019 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in this case violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia properly denied the Motion to Intervene of the Petitioner, the West Virginia House of Delegates. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Respondents are Margaret L. Workman; Mitch Carmichael, President of the West Virginia Senate; Donna J. Boley, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; Ryan Ferns, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; Lee Cassis, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the West Virginia Senate. Petitioner is the West Virginia House of Delegates as an indispensable and materially affected party who was wrongfully denied intervenor status.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Superior Court Building
    f • F I LED NOV 2 5 1997 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA In The Matter Of: ) ) A NEW JURY HANDBOOK ) Administrative Order FOR THE SUPERIOR ) No. 97- 64 COURT IN PINAL COUNTY ) ) --------------------------------) Pursuant to Rule 18.6(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, Alma J. Haught, Clerk of the Superior Court in Pinal County, requests the Court's approval of a new jury handbook. The Court, having reviewed a draft of the handbook, finds that it is sufficient in form and content to fully and properly advise jurors of their conduct and duties, and the operations of the judicial system in which they will be serving. Now, therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution, IT IS ORDERED that the handbook is approved for immediate use by the Superior Court in Pinal County in the form submitted hereto as Attachment A. DATED this 25th day of November ,1997. THOMAS A. ZLA~ Chief Justice COpy ,4TTACHMENT A .f lJ I( \' i 1;\ N I,.I()OK PINAL ('OllNT" COlll{TS STAT II: OF AIUZONA Illi,- I, '''Hlh'''''' h:" I" \'11 :ll'llnl\' cI It, Ih,' '-I'p"'IIII' t ollfl III Ih.' ',1;1'1' ul ;\liltilla 1"" '>lI:!!I' ,,, "H' 1(110,,1 ( I illlillal l'rlltT,lul'/ Hllh lit I,'al. JURY HANDBOOK Prepared by: Alma Jennlnp Hauabt Oerk of tbe Superior Court 1997 Edition INDEX General Information 6S Absence from Employment 6S Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Period of Service 6S Justice of the Peace Judges and Precincts 4 Work Verification 66 Superior Court Judges and Divisions 6 Parking 66 Clerk of the Superior Court! Attire 66 Jury Commissioner 18 Vacation/Change of Address 66 Welcome 21 Payment 67 Introduction 23 Badges 67 Guarantees of the Right to Trial by Jury 25 Jury Trial Scheduling 67 Arizona's Judicial System 27 Smoking Policy 67 Supreme Court 28 Telephones 68 Court of Appeals 29 Security 68 Superior Court 30 Pinal County Complex Diagram 69 Justice of the Peace Courts 32 Judicial Building (Courthouse) Diagram 70 Municipal Courts 34 Important Telephone Numbers 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Azturbocourt User Manual
    AZTurboCourt User Manual Arizona Supreme Court - Court Services Division Version 3.9 Updated using gamma version 10.9.3 August 2013 1 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved 2 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved Contents Section One: AZTurboCourt Registration 5 AZTurboCourt Home Page 7 Registering: 7 Adding a user account 9 Editing Organization Information 10 Inactivating a user account 10 Section Two: User Menu 11 Start a new filing 11 Messages 11 Recent e-filing 12 My Forms 13 My Profile 15 My Payments/Financial 16 Section Three: E-filing in Maricopa County Superior Court 17 Maricopa County Superior Court Main Document Types 22 Subsequent Document Title List 23 Section Four: Court of Appeals Division One or the Arizona Supreme Court 25 Things to know before you start e-filing 25 Start a new case: Court of Appeals Div. One and or/ the Arizona Supreme Court 26 Subsequent filings: Court of Appeals Div One and/or the Arizona Supreme Court 31 Access conformed court copy 35 Document Title List 37 Initiating Document Title List-Arizona Supreme Court 37 Subsequent Document Title List- Arizona Supreme Court 38 Initiating Document Title List-Court of Appeals Division One 40 Subsequent Document Title List- Court of Appeals Division One 41 Section Five: Payment Options 43 Section Six: Supplemental Information 51 Attach supporting documents in Maricopa County Superior Court 51 Attach supporting documents in Court of Appeals Division One or the Arizona Supreme Court 51 Courtesy Notifications 52 Filing Details and Status Messages: 52 Trouble Shooting Error Messages 53 Header Detail on Attachment Page 55 Keyword Matter # 55 Request my forms 55 Copy for new form set 56 Delete Filing 57 List my forms 57 Start new filing 58 Summary Sheet 59 3 | P a g e Statewide User Manual - Version 3.9 © 2015 Arizona Supreme Court -All Rights Reserved Viewing Court Case Documents 59 Common Terms 61 Administrative Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Judicial Branch Information Technology Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2011-2013
    Arizona Judicial Branch Information Technology Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2011-2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 9 II. PLANNING METHOD AND PARTICIPANTS ................................... 18 III. JUDICIAL BRANCH VISION ......................................................... 21 IV. JUDICIAL BRANCH STRATEGIC INITIATIVES .............................. 24 V. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC INITIATIVES .............. 34 VI. FISCAL YEAR 2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS .................................... 41 VII. CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS ......................................... 57 VIII. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES ............................................................ 59 IX. STRATEGIC PROJECTS .............................................................. 97 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: HARDWARE ENVIRONMENT DETAIL .......................................... 211 APPENDIX B: SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT DETAIL .......................................... 213 APPENDIX C: TABLE OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS………………….220 APPENDIX D: COUNTY COURT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLANS ............................................................................................ 228 ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN: 2011 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Arizona Judicial Branch is using technology to reach its goals of connecting with and protecting the community. Having built the basic
    [Show full text]
  • Short Summary and Expedited The
    SHORT, SUMMARY & EXPEDITED THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL JURY TRIALS SHORT, SUMMARY & EXPEDITED THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL JURY TRIALS PROJECT DIRECTOR PAULA L. HANNAFORD-AGOR PROJECT STAFF NICOLE L. WATERS AMY M. MCDOWELL SUSAN L. KEILITZ CYNTHIA G. LEE SHANNON BAPTISTE Acknowledgments In compiling these case studies, we are indebted to the judges, attorneys, and court staff who gave so generously of their time and expertise: ARIZONA NEW YORK Hon. Norman Davis Hon. Douglas McKeon Hon. Hugh Hegyi Hon. Barry Salman Hon. Joseph Gama Hon. Lucindo Suarez Marcus Reinkensmeyer Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Phil Knox Jack Lehnert Peter Kiefer Frank Vozza, Esq. Emelda Dailey Annmarie Webster, Esq. Andrew Turk, Esq. Michelle Kolodny, Esq. Dorothy Paine, Esq. CALIFORNIA OREGON Hon. Mary Thornton House Hon. Paul De Muniz Hon. Curtis Karnow Hon. Adrienne Nelson Hon. Michael P. Linfield Hon. Henry Kantor Patrick O’Donnell Hon. Janice Wilson Dan Pone Hon. Marilynn Litzenberger Anne Ronan Hon. Judith Matarrazo Dag MacLeod Douglas P. Oh-Keith, Esq. Kristin Greenaway Walter H. Sweek, Esq. Gregory C. Drapac Elijah B. Van Camp, Esq. Gloria Gomez Jason Kafoury, Esq. Dawn Marie Favata, Esq. Erik Van Hagen, Esq. Michael Geibelson, Esq. Emery Wang, Esq. Mike Maguire, Esq. Dean Heiling, Esq. Jon P. Strouss, III, Esq. Tyler Staggs, Esq. Eric V. Traut, Esq. Randall Wolfe, Esq. Larry Shuckman, Esq. We are also indebted to Peter Kyle and Rachel Ganong for background research and to Shannon Baptiste for SOUTH CAROLINA administrative support. Hon. Jean Hoefer Toal Hon. Daniel Pieper This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-D1-BX-K038 Hon. Kristi Harrington awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Consultant Report, Anchorage Felony Delay
    IMPROVING CRIMINAL CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT IN THE ALASKA SUPERIOR COURT IN ANCHORAGE Final Technical Assistance Report March 2009 David C. Steelman, Esq. Principal Court Management Consultant Daniel J. Hall, Vice President Court Consulting Services 707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202-3429 (303) 293-3063 © 2009 National Center for State Courts This document was prepared under a 2008 agreement between the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the Office of the Administrative Director of the Alaska Court System (Alaska Court System), for the provision of technical assistance to the Alaska Superior Court in Anchorage, Alaska (the Superior Court). The points of view and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of either the Alaska Court System or the Superior Court. NCSC grants the Alaska Court System and the Superior Court a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to produce, reproduce, publish, distribute or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, all or any part of this report for any governmental or public purpose. Online legal research provided by LexisNexis. ii IMPROVING CRIMINAL CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT IN THE ALASKA SUPERIOR COURT IN ANCHORAGE Table of Contents Page Overview .........................................................................................................................................v Part One. The “Phoenix Group” at the NCSC Workshop on Reducing Delay in Metropolitan Courts ................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Court-Connected Arbitration in the Superior Courts of Arizona
    A Study of Court-Connected Arbitration in the Superior Courts of Arizona Submitted to The Supreme Court of Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts By Roselle L. Wissler & Bob Dauber Lodestar Dispute Resolution Program Arizona State University College of Law July 13, 2005 A Study of Court-Connected Arbitration in the Superior Courts of Arizona Executive Summary I. Introduction: Arizona’s Court-Connected Arbitration System Arizona has had mandatory, non-binding arbitration as a component of its civil court system for over three decades. The purpose of this alternative dispute resolution process is to provide for the efficient and inexpensive handling of small claims. By reducing the number of cases pending before judges, court-connected arbitration also is intended to expedite the disposition of civil cases that remain in the traditional litigation process. In early 2004, the Supreme Court of Arizona’s Administrative Office of the Courts commissioned a study to examine the current arbitration system to determine its efficiency and effectiveness as an alternative dispute resolution tool, as well as to ascertain user satisfaction with the process and its outcomes. This study accessed various sources of information to answer the following questions: 1. How do the different courts in Arizona administer their arbitration programs? 2. How are the arbitration programs performing? 3. How is court-connected arbitration viewed by lawyers? 4. What is the experience with court-connected arbitration in other states? The structure of court-connected arbitration in Arizona, and the different ways it is administered throughout the state, is addressed in Section II of this Report. Section III examines the performance of arbitration programs through an analysis of civil case data.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenix Municipal Court Juror Reference Manual
    Phoenix Municipal Court Juror Reference Manual Message from the Chief Presiding Judge Welcome Juror, You have been summoned for jury service. Your participation as a juror is just as important as the judge's and the attorneys' in the courtroom. Your role as a juror is to get a full understanding of the facts of a criminal case, to evaluate the evidence, and to make an impartial and fair decision. The outcome of a trial by jury relies on you. Therefore, we ask you to discharge your duty with care, honesty, and good conscience. We hope your jury service will be a rewarding, interesting, and positive experience. Our court system strives for fairness to everyone who comes before it, and the core of this fairness is Trial by Jury. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson listed the fact that the citizens of the Colonies had been deprived of the benefits of Trial by Jury as one of the injuries perpetrated by the King of Great Britain. As citizens of this Country, if we are accused of certain criminal acts, we have the right to a Trial by Jury. By the same token, we have the responsibility to act when called upon to serve as a juror. Like the privilege of voting, jury duty is one significant way we can participate in the democratic process. The people of the United States of America rely upon jurors for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a juror, you will play an important role in the American system of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-____ In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner, v. HECTOR SEBASTION NUNEZ-DIAZ, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MARK BRNOVICH ORAMEL H. (O.H.) SKINNER Attorney General Solicitor General DREW C. ENSIGN Deputy Solicitor General JOSEPH A. KANEFIELD Counsel of Record Chief Deputy and ANTHONY R. NAPOLITANO Chief of Staff ROBERT J. MAKAR Assistant Attorneys General BRUNN W. ROYSDEN III OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA Division Chief ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-5025 Drew.Ensign@azag.gov Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) and Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), this Court held that lawful permanent residents that received deficient advice regarding immigration-law consequences of a plea can assert claims under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Although this Court has not yet addressed how these precedents apply to unlawfully present aliens, the lower courts are deeply divided as to how they do. Respondent, an unauthorized alien, asserted a Padilla/Lee claim. It is undisputed that he had no substantive right to remain in the United States, and was thus subject to deportation at any time. Respondent also submitted no evidence whatsoever that he had a viable defense either against the criminal charges or deportation if he were acquitted. The Arizona Supreme Court nevertheless extended Padilla and Lee to unauthorized aliens and held that Respondent had established prejudice under Strickland.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of the Electronic Court Record in the Juvenile Court in Maricopa County
    CLIMATE CHANGE: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELECTRONIC COURT RECORD IN THE JUVENILE COURT IN MARICOPA COUNTY Institute for Court Management ICM Fellows Program 2013-2014 Court Project Phase May 2014 Debora Wells-Guevara Juvenile Services Administrator Maricopa County Clerk of the Court Phoenix, Arizona Acknowledgments I thank Michael Jeanes, Clerk of the Superior Court, Maricopa County and Chief Deputy, Chris Kelly, for their leadership, commitment to professional development and encouragement. Both are role models for leading and managing change and visionaries for the Clerk’s Office and the Superior Court. I am grateful to them for allowing me the opportunity to take on the challenge of completing the Fellows Program. I thank my colleagues in the Clerk’s Office, Mark Jensen, EDM Manager and Dorothy King, Business Analyst. Mark was generous of his time and extraordinarily patient talking through many questions and Dorothy has been an extraordinary resource for all things in Juvenile Court operations. I thank the staff at the National Center for State Courts, and in particular, Daniel Straub, my project advisor, who provided insight and guidance. Also, Amy McDowell and Joan Cochet, who were of great help to me. I acknowledge my classmates for their support during all phases of the program, especially Johnny Tse, who was helpful with Microsoft Word and Excel. And my colleague, Stacey Brady, who kindly read through my document. Finally, to my husband and children, you encouraged, assisted and supported me. You are the best! “Nothing is accomplished unless you first try.” - Anonymous iii iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... iii Table of Contents .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MEETING NOTICE and AGENDA Commission on Statewide Rules Of
    Supreme Court of Nevada ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ROBIN SWEET JOHN MCCORMICK Director and Assistant Court Administrator State Court Administrator Judicial Programs and Services RICHARD A. STEFANI Deputy Director Information Technology MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Commission on Statewide Rules of Criminal Procedure Videoconference Date and Time of Meeting: March 21, 2019 at Noon Place of Meeting: Carson City Las Vegas Washoe Supreme Court Nevada Supreme Court Building Second Judicial District Court Library Room 107 Conference Room A/B Room 220B 201 S. Carson Street 408 E. Clark Avenue 75 Court Street Carson City, Nevada Las Vegas, NV Reno, NV Teleconference Access: Dial-In # 1-408-740-7256 Meeting ID 1110011234 All participants attending via teleconference should mute their lines when not speaking; it is highly recommended that teleconference attendees use a landline and handset in order to reduce background noise. AGENDA I. Call to Order A. Call of Roll and Determination of a Quorum B. Opening Remarks II. Public Comment III. Review and Approval of the February 25, 2019 Meeting Summary* (Tab 1) IV. Work Group Updates A. Jury Instructions Work Group (Tab 2) B. Life/Death Pretrial Practice Work Group i. Settlement Conferences – Research/Follow-Ups (Tab 3) V. Proposed Statewide Rules: Discussion A. Draft Rules Discussion (Tab 4) i. Boyd Law School White Paper (Tab 5) ii. Local Rules of Practice Supreme Court Building 201 South Carson Street, Suite 250 Carson City, Nevada 89701 (775) 684-1700 · Fax (775) 684-1723 Supreme Court Building 408 East Clark Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 1 Second Judicial District Eighth Judicial District B.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Role of Non-Lawyer Judges in Limited Jurisdiction Court Civil Cases
    Volume 29 Issue 1 Winter 1999 Winter 1999 Disorder in the People's Court: Rethinking the Role of Non-Lawyer Judges in Limited Jurisdiction Court Civil Cases Cathy Lesser Mansfield Recommended Citation Cathy L. Mansfield, Disorder in the People's Court: Rethinking the Role of Non-Lawyer Judges in Limited Jurisdiction Court Civil Cases, 29 N.M. L. Rev. 119 (1999). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol29/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr DISORDER IN THE PEOPLE'S COURT: 1 RETHINKING THE ROLE OF NON-LAWYER JUDGES IN LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT CIVIL CASES CATHY LESSER MANSFIELD* If the will of the individual is subjected arbitrarily to the will of others because the means of protection are too cumbrous and expensive to be available for one of his means against an aggressive opponent who has the means or the inclination to resist, there is an injury to society at large.2 I. MY PROBLEMS WITH NON-LAWYER JUDGES AND THE COURTS OVER WHICH THEY PRESIDE ................. 120 A. Case Number One ...................................... 120 B. Case Number Two ..................................... 124 C. The Arizona Justice of the Peace Courts .................... 127 D. Other Justice Court Stories ............................... 132 E. The Goal of this Article ................................. 133 II. A HISTORY OF NON-LAWYER JUSTICES IN CIVIL MATTERS AND EFFORTS AT REFORM ...................... 134 A. A History of Non-Lawyer Justices in Civil Matters ............ 134 B. A History of Efforts to Reform Non-Lawyer Courts ..........
    [Show full text]