John Stuart's "Final" Hearing Before the Trial
Powell Gammill
Date: 01-28-2010
Subject:
Arizona's Top News
CR-2008106594
St. of Arizona versus John C. Stuart
Maricopa Co. Superior Court (downtown)
Monday, January 25, 2009
Second Degree Murder Trial
Synopsis (see links)
Monday, January 25 , 2010 was the final pre-trial conference before
John Stuart's scheduled February 1st trial start. However the trial
was not going to take place.
On Jan. 15, 2010 there was a motion by defense council, Public Defender John Johnson, to withdraw from the case (because John Stuart had filed suit
against him in both Arizona and federal court (the latter under a civil
rights 42USC1983 violation) essentially of not representing him to his
fullest ability but rather conspiring with Judge Paul McMurdie amongst
many other things in trying to get him declared incompetent to stand trial. I did not believe Mr. Stuart when he broached me with this particular conspiracy at the time. After this hearing I do now.
I went into this hearing expecting both the defense council and the
judge to recuse themselves. How can they be impartial when they are
being sued by the defendant --- though at some point this is a problem,
as a defendant could always put off a trial by repeatedly suing the
judge and/or his defense attorney(s)?
This hearing was not exclusively for John Stuart. There were over a
dozen others awaiting Judge McMurdie at 8:30 that morning. Mr.
Stuart's case was scheduled sixth. So I watched case after case,
including a very good defense lawyer complicate the state's case
against his client. After this third case, Mr. Stuart got up and left
the galley -- to go to the bathroom -- and I watched the judge's eyes
follow Mr. Stuart out of the courtroom. The judge then said that since
Mr. Johnson (Stuart's court appointed defense attorney) had been
waiting so long this morning he would take his case next. Mad scramble
to get Mr. Stuart back in the courtroom.
Once back in the courtroom Mr. Stuart remained standing -- as is his
custom -- behind the bar in the galley rather than along side "his"
defense attorney.
John Stuart and the judge had a exchange as to whether the judge was
going to be following the rules of the Arizona Supreme Court or his own
rules? The judge said he followed ALL of the rules of the Supreme
Court in his courtroom, and that would be the case in his trial.
Mr. Stuart brought up Rule 6.3 (a) and (c):
Rule 6.3. Duties of counsel; withdrawal
a. Notice of Appearance.At his or her first appearance in any court on behalf of a defendant,
an attorney, whether privately retained or appointed by the court,
shall file a notice of appearance on a form provided by the clerk of
the court.
c. Duty Upon Withdrawal.
No attorney shall be permitted to withdraw after a case has been set
for trial except upon motion accompanied by the name and address of
another attorney, together with a signed statement by the substituting
attorney that he or she is advised of the trial date and will be
prepared for trial. Appointed counsel may withdraw after the
arraignment on the grounds of his or her client's ineligibility only
upon a showing that withdrawal will not disrupt the orderly processing
of the case.
Another interesting exchange was the statement by the judge to Mr.
Stuart that the judge would take Mr. Johnson's word as the truth --
because Mr. Johnson was on officer of the court -- and that proof was
not necessary when we had Mr. Johnson's word. The mere claim that Mr.
Johnson had indeed filed the appropriate paperwork was sufficient to
move along without providing the proof. How very convenient.
There were some more exchanges, including a Rule 11 inquiry (mental
competency of dependent) in which Stuart said the issue was moot
because an attorney had not been appointed.
The judge them moved on to Defense Attorney's motion to withdraw. The
judge did not want him to withdraw and spent about 20 minutes trying to
keep him from withdrawing. The reason Mr. Johnson gave for his request
for withdraw was the lawsuit Mr. Stuart had filed against him.
The judge said he too was a party to this lawsuit, and certainly Mr.
Johnson's lawyer had told him what his lawyer had informed him of,
namely this lawsuit had no merit and would be tossed out of the
courts. Mr. Johnson replied that his attorney in fact DID NOT so inform
him that the lawsuit was frivolous and without merit. Gosh, I would
have loved to know what Mr. Johnson's lawyer told him;-)
The judge later dropped this bombshell. In his opinion, "Mr. Stuart is
not mentally competent to try this case." Mr. Stuart's court appointed
defense council, Mr. Johnson jumped to say he shared the judge's viewpoint in
this regard. And he added that one of Mr. Stuart's court appointed
psychologist's determined that Mr. Stuart suffered some kind of unnamed
psychosis. [This is what the psychologist claimed: 'Mr. Stuart may suffer from a
disorder that renders in him a compulsion to filing forms with the
court.']
Mr. Johnson went on to add that if only Mr. Stuart would cooperate with
further evaluation by this psychologist the root of his dementia might
be uncovered. Yes, if only Mr. Stuart would cooperate -- that is the
issue isn't it? If only he would assist in his conviction. The other two
court appointed psychiatrists who did not find any sort of imaginary
disorder and declared Mr. Stuart competent for trial were not brought
up. Even the psychologist who brought up this imaginary disorder declared Stuart competent to stand trial under the meaning of the law.
The only time Ms. Susie Charbel, the Maricopa County prosecutor, was
asked anything was her opinion on Mr. Stuart's competence. She stated
Mr. Stuart had demonstrated throughout his knowledge of law, procedure
and had well articulated himself including today. She knew of no
evidence Mr. Stuart did not understand the nature of the charges
against him, nor could not assist in his own defense. I was confused --- I thought Mr. Johnson was the court appointed defense council.
Mr. Stuart interrupts the judge at some point -- frankly not being
able to tell when the judge had ceased making a comment -- and the judge
threatened him with contempt and arrest if he interrupted him again.
The judge said he would not discuss either Rule 6.3 or 6.1 (right to
counsel or to waive counsel). He then asked Stuart did he want a
lawyer or to represent himself (with clearly no discussion allowed unless he
wanted to be hold in contempt)? After a long pause, Mr. Stuart replied
he was unprepared to give the judge an answer on that at this time. I
don't blame Stuart, I had a bunch of questions too.
The judge said that was the first thing Mr. Stuart had said today that he understood.
He went on to rule Mr. Johnson was relieved of further responsibility
in this case. He ordered a new public defender be appointed until such
time as Mr. Stuart made his decision as to whether to have a lawyer
represent him, or to represent himself. He strongly suggested Mr.
Stuart meet with this new public defender and then decide.
Mr. Stuart
wanted to know did this mean the court would accept his motions? A
resounding "NO!" from the judge. He cannot file motions with the court unless he is
representing himself.
The judge then recused himself.
So the judge tries to get the defense council to stay on, and then recuses himself for the same reason!? Come on!
Ostensibly a new court date of Feb. 26 at 8:30a.m. was set for a new judge (in a new Division?). We will see.
And for those keeping count this makes two judges and four defense lawyers whom have withdrawn from this case. And another half dozen judges he has passed in front of.
|
