Don’t act surprised, we all knew I couldn’t help myself.
Disclaimer: I AM NOT REALLY A JUDGE. I AM AWARE I AM NOT A JUDGE AND I AM IN NO WAY SERIOUSLY INTENDING FOR ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT I AM A JUDGE. I JUST PLAY ONE ON MY BLOG. ALSO, I TOTALLY JACKED THIS SIXTEEN ITEM MOTIONS JUDGEMENT FROM JEFF GOLD AND CHANGED IT TO HOW IT,IN MY OPINION SHOULD READ. BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU JACK SOMEONE’S STUFF HERE IS THE LINK TO THE REAL DOCUMENT. http://www.thegoldpatrol.com/
SUPERIOR COURT OF KELLY
DISTRICT OF JUAN COUNTY
CLERK OF THE COURT-STABBY’S PENCIL
STATE OF FUCKED UP JURISTS and JUAN M MARTINEZ
STABBY ANAL EINSTEIN(001) ALFRED E. NURMI
JENNY FROM THE CELL BLOCK CHA CHA DE LA HOSA (UNDERBOSS)
The Court has considered the defendant’s COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS AND FRIVILOUS Motion to Dismiss the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life (WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT EVEN MEANS) filed September 26, 2014 (with attachments BECAUSE WHY NOT), the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to being whiny bitches October 1, 2014, the State’s Objection to Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life filed October 6, 2014, the State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Notice to Intent to Seek Death Penalty Due to Continue State Misconduct filed October 10, 2014, Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to still being whiny bitches Supplement #1 filed October 24, 2014, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss All Charges with Prejudice and/or in the Alternative to Dismiss the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty BECAUSE THAT SOUNDED REALLY FUCKING COOL WHEN ALFRED E. NURMI THOUGHT OF IT AND HE HAD A BLANK MOTION FORM HANDY both filed on November 10, 2014, the State’s Motion for Discover (Compaq Presario Computer)filed November 13, 2014, the State’s Motion for Sanctions (Compaq Presario Computer) filed November 16, 2014, the State’s Motion to Strike (Compaq Presario Computer) filed November 18, 2014, the State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss All Charges with Prejudice and/or in the Alternative to Dismiss the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty because it sounded really fucking cool and a bunch of other horseshit that doesn’t matter anyway. (NOTE TO SELF, FIND OUT IF NURMI THINKS HE IS GETTING PAID BY THE PAGE.) filed November 20, 2014, the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration: Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life(SERIOUSLY DOES ANYONE EVEN KNOW IF THAT IS A THING) filed November 26, 2014, Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration: Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life filed December 1, 2014, YOU KNOW WHAT, LETS JUST MAKE THIS A LOT EASIER FOR EVERYONE READING AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH A BUNCH OF STUPID TIME WASTING MOTIONS THAT I CAN ONLY ASSUME COME TO ONE OF THE 4 IDIOTS OF THE APOCALYPSE IN THIER DREAMS AND ANSWERS FROM THE STATE TO SAID MOTIONS.
Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial. State v. Aguilar, 217 Ariz. 235, 172 P.3d 423 (App. 2007). To prove prosecutorial misconduct, the proponent must show : (1) the State’s action was improper; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying the defendant a fair trial. State v. Ramos, 235 Ariz. 230, 330 P.3d 987 (App. 2014); State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 65 P.3d 61 (2003); State v.Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 832 P.2d 593 (1992). To prevail upon a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to justify reversal must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial. State v. Edmisten, 220 Ariz. 517, 207 P.3d 770 (2009). There is a distinction between simple prosecutorial error and misconduct that is so egregious that it raises concerns over the integrity and fundamental fairness of the trial. AND ONE THAT ANY FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW State v. Minnitt, 203 Ariz. 431, 438, 55 P.3d774 (2002); Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 105, 677 P.2d 261, 268 (1984). Conduct is egregious when the material at issue was highly significant to the primary jury issue with the potential to have an important effect on the jury’s determination. Donnelly v.DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 647 (1974). The prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police. It is the duty of the State as a whole to conduct prosecutions honorably and in compliance with the law. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). The trial judge is in the best position to determine the atmosphere of the trial, the circumstances surrounding the incident, the manner in which any objectionable statement was made, and its possible effect on the jury and trial. Statev. Nelson, 229 Ariz. 180, 273 P.3d 632 (2012): State v. Koch, 138 Ariz. 99, 673 P.2d 297 (1983). The prosecutor has wide discretion in deciding whether to seek the death penalty. Allowing prosecutors the discretion to seek the death penalty is constitutional. State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, 226, 141 P.3d 368 (2006); State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 291, 908 P.2d 1062(1996).
Each BULLSHIT allegation of prosecutorial misconduct claimed by Defendant STABBY ANAL EINSTEIN will be discussed below AND WE WILL FIND OUT EXACTLY HOW EINSTEIN-Y SHE IS.
1. Potential mitigation witnesses will not testify. Defendant claims possible(PLEASE NOTE THE WORDS POTENTIAL AND POSSIBLE, THEY ARE KIND OF IMPORTANT. JUST SAYIN’) mitigation witnesses will not speak with defense counsel and others will not testify at the penalty phase retrial for fear of reprisal and/or “cyberbullying”. Defendant provided PROBABLY FORGED AND OR COERCED affidavits to support her claim in the attachments to the Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life(WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT IT JUST SOUNDS WRONG) filed under seal(BECAUSE THE DEFENSE ARE A BUNCH OF BIG FAT PUSSIES) on September 26, 2014. In addition, the Court has reviewed the information provided in the sealed supplements filed on January 5, 2015 and January 7, 2015. In the defendant’s motion to reconsider filed November 26, 2014, Defendant STABBY ANAL EINSTEIN argues the decision made by the Court of Appeals on the special action has inhibited her ability to present a complete defense of her life since potential defense witnesses cannot testify in sealed proceedings. This Court disagrees BECAUSE WE HAVE A FUNCTIONING FRONTAL LOBE. The ruling issued by the Court of Appeals does not address the testimony of any witness other than the defendant. There are many ways to address the concerns expressed by these potential witnesses.
For example, it is possible that testimony of a potential defense witness could be provided through the testimony of another witness. (See A.R.S. § 13751(C), which provides the prosecution or defendant may present any information that is relevant to any mitigating circumstance regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing Docket Code 019 Form R000A Page 3
the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials.) In fact, that has occurred during the penalty phase retrial. During the testimony of the defense expert witnesses, Dr.SEXPERT and Dr. Robert GOOFY, the defendant elicited information obtained from some of the witnesses listed in the Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life, filed under seal on September 26, 2014. Other options are available if a witness is reluctant or refuses to appear and testify. Defendant could subpoena a witness to appear in court. See A.R.S. § 134071(A)(D). The name of a witness could be sealed to protect the privacy interests of that witness. Defendant could present information from potential witnesses through the mitigation specialist.(THIS IS TOTALLY THE ONE I SAY WE GO WITH JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FUNNY TO WATCH MR MARTINEZ RIP APART CHA CHA.) The testimony of witnesses who testified at the first trial could be provided to the penalty phase jury through transcripts or the video recording made by the court’s For the Record (FTR) system. Alternatively, affidavits and videotaped statements of a witness could be presented to the penalty phase retrial jury. The Court finds the defendant has failed to establish any misconduct by the State throughout the course of these proceedings(BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE) that has impaired or hindered the defendant’s ability to present mitigating evidence and/or prove mitigating factors pursuant to A.R.S. § 13751(C). The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. DENIED
2. Text messages were not timely disclosed. The State provided text messages sent or received OR JUST MADE UP by the victim in October 2010 after initially indicating to the defendant that these text messages were not available DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY. Defendant argues there was exculpatory content within these electronic messages which was contrary to the testimony of Detective Flores at a hearing conducted in June 2010. As noted in the defendant’s motion filed October 1, 2014, many of the victim’s text messages and emails were admitted in evidence during the first trial. The defendant has reviewed many of the victim’s emails, text messages and gmail messages in great detail with her expert witnesses during the penalty phase retrial(MOSTLY BECAUSE SHE GOT SUCH A HUGE BUZZ OUT OF THE ONES SHE JUST MADE UP). Defendant has failed to establish the failure to provide the victim’s electronic messages earlier than October 2010 was for any reason other than the messages were not available due to technological issues. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. DENIED
3. Defendant’s rights were violated by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. (REALLY? I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS SHIT TOO? FINE!) Specifically, Defendant alleges three incidents support her claim. First, Defendant alleges her jail cell was searched(LIKE OMG THEY ACTUALLY SEARCH PEOPLE WHO ARE IN JAIL FOR CONTRABAND AND WEAPONS? I’M TOTALLY SHOCKED BY THIS BIT OF INFORMATION) by jail personnel in February 2014. Second, in February 2014, the mitigation specialist was denied entrance to the jail after SMUGGLING the defendant’s drawings with her after a jail visit. Jail personnel deemed the drawings to be contraband. Finally, in May 2014, a legal document (a photocopy of a book) was taken from the defendant’s cell during a jail search. Defendant “suspects” the book was copied and provided to the prosecutor. These matters were previously addressed by the Court. Defendant cannot show the searches were other than routine searches conducted as part of security protocols at the jail. Defendant cannot show any prejudice to her case as a result of these jail searches. Defendant failed to provide any evidence to support her allegation that the book taken from her cell was photocopied and/or provided to the prosecutor. With regard to the mitigation specialist, the matter was resolved within a one week period and the mitigation specialist was permitted to resume visits with the defendant(EVEN THOUGH IN MY OPINION THE BITCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED ON THE SPOT. STILL THINKING ABOUT IT CHA CHA, WATCH YOUR STEP IN COURT.) See minute entry dated May 27, 2014. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon these claims. (MAN THEY REALLY ARE GETTING DESPERATE AREN’T THEY?) DENIED.
4. Inconsistent testimony was given by Detective Flores regarding the sequence of injuries sustained by the victim. (IS THIS EVER GOING TO GO AWAY. CHRIST I WANTED TO WATCH TV SOMETIME THIS WEEK, ERR I MEAN)The defendant argues it was prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor to elicit testimony from the case agent, Detective Esteban Flores, regarding the sequence of injuries sustained by the victim at the Chronis hearing knowing his testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of the medical examiner. In January 2013, the defendant sought a new probable causing hearing (Chronis hearing) arguing that the testimony of Detective Flores at trial warranted a new probable cause finding on the aggravating factor alleged by the State. The Court denied the request for a new finding of probable cause by minute entry dated January 10, 2013. Defendant filed a special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals.(BECAUSE SHE THINKS SHE IS A SPECIAL LITTLE SNOWFLAKE.) The Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction. During the guilt phase, the defendant cross examined both Detective Flores and the medical examiner about the sequence of wounds and the detective’s testimony at the probable cause hearing in August 2009. During the penalty phase retrial, the defendant examined both Detective Flores and the medical examiner about these issues FOR ABOUT 700 HOURS. SOMEBODY CHECK THAT. . Detective Flores has testified and explained to both juries the reasons for his testimony in August 2009. The medical examiner has testified regarding his expert opinion on the sequence of wounds. It is for the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses. The defendant fully explored and argued her position on the sequence of wounds. The Court finds the defendant has failed to show any State misconduct with regard to Detective Flores’ testimony. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this Claim. DENIED.
5. There was a delay IN JENNY’S WEED DELIVERY…NO WAIT, SOMEBODY READ THAT LAST PART BACK. OK, MY BAD. in providing STABBY with the mirror image of the hard drive to the victim’s Compaq Presario computer created on June 11, 2008. The victim’s body was discovered in his home on June 9, 2008. The victim’s Compaq Presario laptop computer was found in the office of his home during the search that followed. Detective Flores touched a key on the computer with a pen which awakened it from sleep mode. The computer was impounded as evidence on June 10, 2008. On June 11, 2008, the Mesa Police Department made a mirror image of the Toshiba hard drive that was on that laptop computer. The State disclosed the laptop computer to the defense. On June 19, 2009, the laptop computer was turned on and accessed at the Mesa Police Department during a review of evidence meeting attended by attorneys representing the defendant. The case agent, prosecutor, and defense investigator were also present during that meeting. On January 31, 2013, Lonnie Dworkin, an expert witness for the defendant, testified at the guilt phase trial that he had reviewed items at the Mesa Police Department, including item #390633, the Compaq Presario laptop computer that belonged to the victim. Mr. Dworkin testified he received a mirror image of the Toshiba hard drive for that computer from the Mesa Police Department. According to Detective Perry Smith, who testified at the evidentiary hearing on December 11, 2014, that mirror image was created in December 2009. This mirror image contained changes made to the hard drive when it was awakened from sleep mode by Detective Flores on June 10, 2008 and changes that occurred when it was turned on for review by defense counsel on June 19, 2009. At the guilt phase trial, Mr. Dworkin explained to the jury the procedure he followed to forensically examine the hard drive he received in the E01 file format, including the steps he took to recover lost or deleted folders. He also explained the method he used to retrieve the internet history. Mr. Dworkin provided testimony regarding when the laptop computer was accessed on June 4, 2008. See R.T. January 31, 2013. On February 4, 2013, during cross examination at the guilt phase trial, Mr. Dworkin testified he recalled seeing some pornography on the victim’s computer AND THIS IS SO IMPORTANT I AM ABOUT TO HAVE TO WRITE FOR AN HOUR BECAUSE A GROWN MAN HAD PORN ON HIS COMPUTER. ARREST EVERY MALE AGE 18 AND UP RIGHT NOW. but he was not asked to look for that type of information. See R.T. February 4, 2013, page 52, line 3 through page 54, line 3. During an interview with a Mesa Police Department detective on December 10, 2014, reference was made to a mirror image of the victim’s hard drive made by the Mesa Police Department on June 11, 2008. Defense counsel requested a copy of that mirror image. The State provided a copy of that mirror image to the defendant in December 2014. According to one of the defendant’s expert witnesses, Bryan Neumeister(WHO IN THIS JUDGES OPINION IS A TOOL. JUST SAYIN’), when the victim’s laptop computer was awakened from sleep mode on June 10, 2008, the computer downloaded updates that were not installed until it was turned on again. This did not occur until June 19, 2009. Thus, the mirror image created on June 11, 2008 should contain the changes made to the hard drive after it was awakened from sleep mode on June 10, 2008 prior to those changes being installed. There is also an issue regarding files being overwritten. The computer experts working with the parties are still analyzing the mirror image of the victim’s hard drive made in June 2008. On January 8, 2015, John Smith, a computer forensic expert witness hired by the defendant, testified at the penalty phase retrial. Mr. Smith examined the mirror images of the hard drive created on June 11, 2008 and December 12, 2009 as well as the original hard drive seized by the Mesa Police Department on June 10, 2008. He testified he had only 3 or 4 days to conduct a review of the June 11, 2008 mirror image of the hard drive. He testified he found data sites containing pornographic links to websites on the Toshiba hard drive. Mr. Smith testified if he had more time to analyze the hard drive it was possible he could have found more pornography links. Mr. Smith testified that none of the images he reviewed were an exact image of the Toshiba hard drive before it was awakened from sleep mode on June 10, 2008. However, the June 11, 2008 hard drive is the closest exact image. The source evidence and mirror images of the hard drive created on June 11, 2008 and December 12, 2009 contained the same pornographic data sites. These data sites provide the historical record to the pornographic sites visited or accessed by that computer. Mr. Smith testified he found artifacts or remnants of porn in the logs and history files. He testified he found no pornographic photographs, videos or other pornographic media on the hard drive. There was no indication data had been manipulated on that hard drive. Mr. Smith also testified the mirror images of the hard drive he reviewed were automatically modified or altered by the computer on June 10, 2008 and June 19, 2009 but the data files containing the pornographic links were still present after the alterations. Mr. Smith testified that the victim’s laptop computer contained numerous cleaner programs. The goal of these programs is to clean the computer and make it run more efficiently. These programs clean the registry and internet history and can be set to run at a regularly scheduled time or can be run manually. REALLY ALFRED E. YOU JUST MADE ME WRITE ALL THIS WHEN IN THE END IT ALL AMOUNTED TO A BIG BUNCH OF NOTHING. I’M RECONSIDERING THOSE SANCTIONS. On January 14, 2015, Mr. Smith testified that a modification to a hard drive does not change the data on the registry tables. No evidence files were deleted and the history or cookies were not affected when the hard drive was accessed on June 10, 2008 or June 19, 2009. The files that were modified or overwritten were the operating files. Defendant claims the failure to provide the defendant with a copy of the mirror image created on June 11, 2008 prior to December 2014 was an intentional disclosure violation. Further, Defendant claims that mirror image contains exculpatory evidence. No testimony was provided at the evidentiary hearing to explain why the Mesa Police Department provided Mr. Dworkin with a hard drive of the victim’s computer created on December 12, 2009. The Court has no basis to find the Mesa Police Department withheld evidence or refused to provide a copy of any evidence to Mr. Dworkin. To the contrary, a mirror image of the victim’s computer was given to Mr. Dworkin. As he testified at the trial, the focus of the defense at that time was not on the pornography contained on the victim’s computer. Rather, the focus was on the timeline of events that occurred on June 4, 2008. Mr. Dworkin was able to testify about those matters at the guilt phase trial. During cross examination at the guilt phase trial, Mr. Dworkin testified he had been interviewed by the prosecutor about the pornography on the victim’s computer but it had been two years earlier and he could not recall specific details or what he had stated during that interview. Exhibit 9 from the evidentiary hearing conducted on December 4, 2014, the Chain of Custody log maintained by the Mesa Police Department, shows that Detective Melendez and Detective Rios removed the computer from the evidence room on June 11, 2008, stating the evidence was out for investigation. Defense counsel and their expert witnesses received a copy of this log. Mr. Dworkin discussed protocols he followed for examining hard drives. As a computer forensic expert, he would have been aware that it is routine for law enforcement to make a mirror image of the hard drive. Detective Melendez was interviewed by defense counsel prior to trial and testified at the guilt phase trial and the penalty phase retrial. He was examined about his review of the laptop computer hard drive. There is no evidence he intentionally hid the existence of the June 11, 2008 mirror image or failed to provide a copy of the mirror image created in June 2008. According to the defense expert, John Smith, the content on the original hard drive (the “source evidence”) and all mirror images is the same with regard to the pornographic data sites to which Mr. Smith testified. In fact, the source evidence and June 11, 2008 mirror image are the same. Defendant argues that failure to provide the June 11, 2008 mirror image could have affected the jury’s verdict in the guilt phase trial because the State argued during closing argument that there was no corroboration for the defendant’s claim that she saw the victim viewing child pornography on his laptop computer. That issue is not properly before this Court. However, Mr. Dworkin testified at the guilt phase trial he had seen pornography on the laptop. Thus the defendant had the opportunity to pursue the issue during the guilt phase trial. The defendant has an expert witness who testified at the penalty phase retrial about the pornography links he found on the victim’s computer. The State may present evidence disputing the findings of that expert. However, the penalty phase retrial jury will have the benefit of the testimony about the contents found on the victim’s computer hard drive in evaluating the defendant’s testimony about what she says she observed the victim doing on January 21, 2008 as well as the testimony of the defendant’s expert witnesses. (OMFG I’M STILL NOT DONE WITH THIS. SOMEBODY IS GETTING TICKETED NEXT TIME THEY HIT GOLDEN CORRAL.) The original laptop computer and hard drive were disclosed by the State and available for analysis by defense expert witnesses. The evidence at issue was on the source evidence (the original hard drive) and mirror images created from the source evidence. The penalty phase retrial is ongoing. If the defense expert finds additional evidence after further review of the 2008 mirror image, he can be recalled as a witness. Dismissal of the notice of intent to seek the death penalty is not an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation of this nature. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. DENIED DENIED DENIED AND I AM SO PISSED OFF RIGHT NOW
6. Social media postings by the case agent’s wife prejudiced the defendant. (,./MZ CBV XM,. .AS.,MAXNF.ADMN JT, SORRY MY HEAD HIT THE KEYBOARD) Defendant alleges the case agent, Detective Flores, provided nonpublic details about the case to his wife who “tweeted” her opinions on social media. In addition, Detective Flores’ wife supposedly posted a video on You Tube which Defendant Arias describes as a mock movie trailer about the case. Defendant also provided copies of other social media exchanges in which the parties discussed trial matters including a claim that the defendant had a buddy write for her “in prison to create evidence for her story.”See EVERY PIECE OF WASTED PAPER THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THIS ASSININE MOTION. No testimony was provided at the evidentiary hearing regarding these claims BECAUSE WHO NEEDS TESTIMONY WHEN ONE OF STABBY’S SUPPORTERS SAYS SO IN A LETTER TO THE DEFENSE. STABBY relies on the attachments to her motion filed on October 1, 2014 as support for her allegations. The Court has reviewed those attachments. The Court finds the defendant has failed to establish THAT DETECTIVE FLORES’ WIFE EVEN ACTUALLY EXISTS, NEVERMIND THAT IT WAS HER TALKING ON SOCIAL MEDIA. The attachments to the motion indicate SOMEONE WHO PROFESSED TO BE DETECTIVE FLORES WIFE stated there “was much condemning evidence and situations that most people never heard by watching the trial,” discusses the dismissal of a juror, and discusses a court assistant who allegedly made a derogatory statement about the prosecutor. The Court previously made a record about the matter involving the court assistant. The statement supposedly occurred in the courtroom, not a sealed proceeding. The court assistant denied making the statement. Whether there is any truth to the other statements purportedly made by the detective’s wife in her posts is unclear. The Court does not take lightly the allegation that Detective Flores provided nonpublic information to his wife about the case. Detective Flores has ROLLED HIS EYES SO HARD AT THIS MOTION I’M SURPRISED THEY DID NOT BOUNCE JAUNTILY ACROSS MY COURTROOM. Defense counsel has not questioned him about these matters or provided any other evidence BECAUSE THERE ISN’T ANY that would permit this Court to find he violated any court orders. Additionally, some of the information referenced in the attachments may have been discussed in open court and thus there was no violation. There have been numerous court hearings on this case, including hearings in chambers and sealed hearings. This Court cannot recall all of the details of those hearings SINCE THIS TRIAL HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE INCEPTION OF TIME. Without transcripts or testimony by individuals present at those hearings, this Court has insufficient information to find a violation of the court’s orders. The Court is unaware of any legal reason the detective’s wife should be restricted from providing her opinion or commenting about the case on social media. Even if the court had evidence that Detective Flores had discussed matters from a sealed proceeding with his wife, Defendant has failed to show that it affected her case in any way. The penalty phase retrial jurors were questioned about any prior knowledge of the case including information obtained through the media. None of the jurors indicated any knowledge about these social media exchanges. Defendant does not allege how her case was prejudiced by these incidents. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. DOUBLE DOG DENIED THE COURT ALSO HIGHLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE DEFENSE STOP LETTING A CRACKPOT WHO WANTS TO BE STABBY’S BESTEST FRIEND INTERFERE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THIS TRIAL.
7. Detective Flores allegedly commented or provided information to the press about the dismissal of a juror. BECUASE SOME CRAZY BITCH ON SOCIAL MEDIA MADE IT UP, no testimony was provided at the evidentiary hearing about this claim. Exhibit G to the defendant’s motion filed on October 1, 2014 contains a social media message allegedly from the detective’s wife referencing a conversation with a juror that occurred in chambers. It is unknown how the information was provided to Ms. Flores. Defendant presumes the information came from the detective. Defendant does not allege how her case was affected by the social media statement. Even if the detective had discussed a sealed matter with his wife, Defendant has not shown that her case was affected in any way. The jurors empanelled for the penalty phase retrial were questioned about any knowledge about the case and none of them referenced any knowledge of this incident. Based upon the information provided, the Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. TRIPLE DIP DENIED
8. The Maricopa County Sheriff(REALLY? THE SHERIFF AGAIN?) made harassing comments about POOR MUFFIN, I MEAN STABBY to the media BECAUSE HE IS A YELLY, GRILLY, BAD MAN JUST LIKE JUAN. STABBY claims (A LOT OF THINGS, NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE) the Maricopa County Sheriff responded to media inquiries about a pleading allegedly filed by the defendant and those responses were intended to harass the defendant. A document was filed with the federal court alleging violations of law relating to Defendant EINSTEIN. The document, purportedly filed by or on behalf of the defendant, alleged various ways(NONE OF WHICH WERE ACTUALLY DESCRIBED, STABBY had been improperly treated while in custody. The media apparently contacted the Maricopa County Sheriff seeking his response to the allegations. The sheriff denied the allegations in the document. It is unclear whether the sheriff viewed any document prior to speaking with the media. However, the sheriff told the media that inmates are not required to state the pledge of allegiance in order to receive meals. The sheriff also stated he had no knowledge of a Hepatitis C infection at the jail. He denied that the defendant was videotaped while in the restroom and that he or his staff had intercepted letters from or to the defendant and provided them to the media. The sheriff also denied the allegation that the defendant was denied medical treatment while in the jail. SINCE SHE KNEW NONE OF THAT WAS GOING TO FLY, Defendant now asserts she was harassed by the sheriff’s comments.(HMM, I WASN’T THERE/THE NINJA’S DID IT-THE SHERIFF HARASSED STABBY/HIS COMMENTS HARRASED ME) This situation occurred after the first trial and before the penalty phase retrial began. Defendant does not suggest that any information provided by the sheriff was inaccurate or misleading. During jury selection, the potential jurors for the penalty phase retrial were questioned about their knowledge of the case and any media coverage of the case. The defendant had an opportunity to question each potential juror about this incident. Knowledge of this incident was not reported by any of the jurors selected for the penalty phase retrial. Defendant has not shown any prejudice to her case from this incident. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. NEGADO
9. Detective Flores “awakened” the victim’s computer from sleep mode on June 10, REALLY, WE’RE BACK TO THIS AGAIN? FUCK IT DENIED.
10. Evidence was possibly destroyed when the victim’s computer was accessed on June 19, 2009. Detective Flores and the prosecutor were present when former defense counsel for the defendant viewed the victim’s computer on June 19, 2009. REALLY, SHE’S BLAMING HER OWN DEFENSE NOW? WELL, AT LEAST IT’S A NEW IDEA. Turning on the computer at that time changed the hard drive on the victim’s computer. The Mesa Police Department made a mirror image of the victim’s computer on June 11, 2008, the day after the victim’s computer was seized. Any changes that were made to the hard drive as a result of turning on the computer without a write blocker on June 19, 2009 will not affect the content of the mirror image created on June 11, 2008. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. JE REFUSE’
11. Prior attorneys for the defendant were ineffective. Defendant claims her former attorneys were ineffective on June 19, 2009 when they permitted the victim’s computer to be turned on without proper precautions being taken to preserve evidence on that computer. WAIT A MINUTE, DID I NOT JUST RULE ON THIS ONLY WORDED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY? [あらがう
12. Detective Melendez testified at trial and the penalty phase retrial that he found no pornography or viruses on the victim’s computer. Detective Melendez testified at the guilt phase trial on April 23, 2013 that he examined the internet history on the victim’s computer and found no adult sites. He testified he looked at the computer files and found no images of children. At the penalty phase retrial, Detective Melendez testified he found no pornography or viruses on the victim’s computer. The defendant has one or more expert witnesses who analyzed the mirror image of the hard drive to the victim’s laptop computer. Lonnie Dworkin examined the hard drive to the victim’s laptop computer and testified on behalf of the defendant at the guilt phase trial. See paragraph 5 above. John Smith testified at the penalty phase retrial that there were pornography links found on data sites. In addition, he found viruses or malware on the victim’s computer. Detective Melendez was subject to cross examination at all proceedings at which he testified and can be recalled by the defense at the penalty phase retrial. Defendant could have called witnesses to dispute his findings at the guilt phase trial. The defendant presented evidence to the penalty phase retrial jury on this issue. It is the role of the jury to resolve any factual disputes, evaluate the credibility of witnesses and determine the significance of the evidence AND I STOPPED GIVING A FUCK 4 MOTIONS AGO. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. BESTREITEN
13. Comments by the prosecutor during a bench conference were PRETTY MUCH DEAD ON. Defendant alleges the prosecutor made a comment to Defense Counsel during a bench conference that was insulting and unprofessional. WAIT. WHAT? HOW THE FUCK DID MY CLERK EVEN LET THIS MOTION THROUGH. THEY ACTUALLY WANT ME TO CONSIDER REMOVING THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE POOR MUFFINS LAWYERS FEELINGS GOT HURT? DID SOMEBODY SLIP ME A MICKEY. AM I BEING PUNKED? FIIIINE!! BLAH BLAH BLAH LEGAL STUFF. DEFUCKINGNIED
14. The prosecutor harassed a defense witness BY DOING HIS JOB. THE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN EINSTEIN-Y ONE alleges the prosecutor harassed an expert witness at the guilt phase trial by suggesting the witness had inappropriate feelings toward the defendant. This matter was addressed during the guilt phase trial. The State suggested an expert witness for the defendant had Developed personal feelings toward the defendant and lost his professional objectivity. The prosecutor referred to a gift the witness gave to the defendant and the number of visits (12) the witness made to see her as the basis for his questions. See cross examination of Dr. Samuels on March 18, 2013. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART. A party is entitled to explore the bias, credibility and motive of witnesses. The prosecutor zealously cross examined the defense expert on these matters. Defense Counsel questioned the witness about these issues on redirect examination. The Court finds no basis to conclude there was prosecutorial misconduct. The Court finds no ground for dismissal of the indictment or the Notice of the Intent to Seek the Death Penalty based upon this claim. CAN I ACTUALLY DENY THIS TWICE? SOMEBODY HAVE MY CLERK LOOK THAT UP.
15. The prosecutor signed an autograph OMFG DENIED.
16. Reluctance of witnesses to testify at penalty phase retrial. Defendant claims that potential defense witnesses have refused to participate in the penalty phase retrial because they fear the prosecutor may make “improper personal attacks in court and inspire others to attack them outside court.” See page 19, defendant’s October 1, 2014 Motion to Dismiss. ONCE AGAIN PLEASE PAY ATTENTION A party has the right to challenge the credibility, bias and motive of a witness unless the court determines the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or will confuse the issues. See Rule 403, Arizona Rules of Evidence. If the challenge is objectionable, the opposing party has the right to object and the court will rule. In this case, the prosecutor has zealously cross examined the witnesses. The courtroom is open to the public. The court cannot control what the public and media report about what they observe in the courtroom. OKAY YOU KNOW WHAT? MY HAND HURTS, I NEED A STABBY STRENGTH TYLENOL AND I ALREADY COVERED THIS SHIT. OTKAZ
17. The cumulative effect of the prosecutorial misconduct resulted in an unfair trial. OH PUHLEASE. THAT’S IT, I’M PEACING THE FUCK OUT. I’M A FAKE JUDGE I CAN DO WHAT I WANT.WHAT DO YOU MEAN I HAVE TO FINISH IT. IT WOULD BE WAY MORE FUN TO PLAY PIN THE PENIS ON STABBY SOME MORE. COME ON, YOU CAN GO FIRST. YOU KNOW THAT NO MATTER WHERE YOU PIN IT, IT GOES THERE. BEING A FAKE JUDGE SUCKS.
IT IS ORDERED denying the defendant’s ridiculous, monotonous, and complete waste of time never mind all the dead trees that have resulted from all these motions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the State’s Motion for Sanctions (Compaq
Presario Computer) filed November 16, 2014 and the State’s Motion to Strike
FILED THIS 16TH DAY OF JANUARY
Hai! If you enjoy my blog please consider a donation. All donations are hugely appreciated.