Article Image

John Stuart Hearing Sept 14 2009 room 413 Judge Mc Murdie

Written by Subject: Criminal Justice System
This September 14, 2009 at 8:30 in Maricopa County Superior Court Room #413 in front of Judge Paul McMurdie, 201 West Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona the case of Arizona v. JOHN STUART. This is a status conference for the trial that is scheduled to start in October.

John Stuart is pro per, meaning he is defending himself without an attorney. Although he has repeatedly told the court he does not want an attorney the court has refused to acknowledge this and has allowed a public defender to act as his attorney. (violation 1)

On August 27, 2009 the public defender entered a motion to see evidence. The evidence he applied to see was Stuart’s clothing. At issue is the fact that Detective Dalton was commanded by the court in a warrant to take Stuart’s clothing as evidence. But since Stuart’s pants, shirt and coat had the attacker’s blood on them Dalton refused to take the clothing as it would have proved Stuart’s attacker was inside Stuart’s vehicle when he died.
(Violation 2)
This would prove Stuart was justified in defending himself and destroy the State’s case. The warrant also required Dalton to take Stuart’s blood which would have proved Stuart was sober, again Dalton refused to follow the warrant so the State could claim Stuart might have been drinking also. (Violation 3)
Arizona has strange rules concerning exculpatory evidence, which is evidence that is in favor of the Defendant. The State does not have to acquire it but they can't refuse to collect it when obvious and they can't destroy it, which is what Dalton did by purposely refusing to do as commanded by the warrant. Stuart was actually jailed for 8 months for entering exculpatory evidence into his case. That evidence is now sealed so no one can even verify what that evidence is. (Violation 4)
The case was remanded back to the grand jury once for the prosecution’s failure to inform the grand jury of A.R.S. 13-418, the justification statute the legislature passed in 2006 to stop the State from prosecuting people who survived a violent attack. During the grand jury testimony Dalton committed perjury by claiming the very witnesses that told him that attacker was inside Stuart’s vehicle never entered Stuart’s vehicle. (Violation 5)
During the second grand jury, Dalton committed perjury once again making the same statement. (Violation 6)
Prosecutor Susie Charbel then evaded the questions by the grand jury concerning the justification statute to prevent the jurors from understanding that the law is very clear that once someone enters your vehicle you do not have to retreat and you are justified under the law to do what ever you deem appropriate to not be injured. (Violation 7)
At the time of the attack Stuart was performing a political function under directive of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Stuart had been working for the campaign from the day it started. To be more correct, Stuart was one of the handful of people on a conference call that requested Congressman Paul to run for president. Stuart was a consultant for a movie that featured Ron Paul and was impressed by Paul’s economic and political beliefs. Interfering with anyone performing a political function is defined as kidnapping under Arizona law yet Prosecutor Charbel failed to mention this to the grand jury. (Violation 8)
Several of the attackers actions were considered kidnapping in Arizona under A.R.S. 13-1304 and the very prosecutor that is refusing to acknowledge has probably used the same law to prosecute other people. (Violation 9)
The State has already stipulated to this fact as they had actually tried to make Stuart seem as a political radical by claiming in court Stuart had documents that spoke of human rights and how the government should be controlled. Detective Shearer made such inflammatory statements about Stuart on the witness stand; yet he failed to mention the name of these documents as he appeared to have never heard of them before. The documents were certified copies from the National Archives of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. It seems almost insane, or incredibly corrupt, that a police detective was unfamiliar with both documents as he at one point took an oath to protect them. (Violation 10)
The attacker had a blood alcohol content of .19. This means he had drank 15.26 ounces of 80 proof whiskey within one and one half hours before attacking Stuart. The attacker also had 900ml of pinkish brown liquid remaining in his body that the Medical examiner has refused to test. (Violation 11)
The attacker’s wife, who was also “very intoxicated” according to the police, lied to the police about how much she and her husband had to drink and about whether they started the assault by flashing their high beams at Stuart when Stuart passed them on the road. Lying during an investigation is a crime yet the State has refused to charge the attacker’s wife even though they have news clips verifying she has lied several times concerning the events that lead to her husband’s death. Under Arizona she should actually be charged with what is called “the felony murder rule” and “interfering with justice” since she was an accessory to the kidnapping and assault attempts and has repeatedly given false and misleading testimony, which also makes her an accessory after the fact. (Violation 12)
Other issues: One officer claimed he smelled alcohol in Stuart’s vehicle at the time they arrested Stuart, in response Stuart requested a breathalyzer test and the officer(s) refused. (Violation 13)
Stuart informed Dalton that the attacker had gouged his eye and he needed medical attention; Dalton refused medical attention for Stuart and instead took a picture of Stuart’s eye claiming the picture would show there was no injury. If Stuart’s eye was not injured Dalton would have let Stuart see a doctor to controvert Stuart’s claim. But Dalton knew if a doctor checked out Stuart’s eye Stuart could have proved the attacker did injure him. (Violation 14)
Stuart repeatedly requested Dalton take his clothes since Stuart knew the attacker’s blood on them would also prove the attacker was inside Stuart’s. Dalton’s blatant refusal to collect exculpatory evidence is what is known as a “Brady violation” and is grounds for dismissal. (Violation 15)
The Medical examiner has refused to test the attacker’s hair for LSD and acid even though the State is aware that the attacker was an admitted frequent user of both illicit drugs. (Violation 16)
Stuart never left his vehicle and the attacker attempted to pull Stuart out of the window of Stuart’s vehicle by Stuart’s neck according to several witnesses. Dalton and Charbel failed to mention these facts to the grand jury. (Violation 17)

Stuart’s case stands as a perfect example of why Arizona has so many false convictions of innocent people and one of the highest rates of verdicts overturned in the country. The State wastes millions of dollars every year trying to convict people the law is designed to protect, all so a few politicians like Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio can look like they are tough on crime. In actuality Thomas and Arpaio are tough on the victims of crime to further their own political aspirations at a tremendous cost to the people of this State and the very foundation of this Republic.

As listed, the State has committed at least 17 violations of the State’s own laws created by the legislature to prevent the fraudulent prosecution of innocent people. We all have the unalienable right to defend ourselves, especially from the crimes of murder and kidnapping. The fact the State is prosecuting a victim of attempted murder and kidnapping should move every citizen to action.

What if it was you, or your spouse, or your children being attacked? Would you want them to defend themselves? Either stand up for Stuart or be ready to deal with a government that will prosecute you regardless of whether you are a criminal or a victim. When we lose the right to defend ourselves, the other rights won’t matter.

13-1304. Kidnapping; classification; consecutive sentence
A. A person commits kidnapping by knowingly restraining another person with the intent to:
1. Hold the victim for ransom, as a shield or hostage; or
2. Hold the victim for involuntary servitude; or
3. Inflict death, physical injury or a sexual offense on the victim, or to otherwise aid in the commission of a felony; or
4. Place the victim or a third person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury to the victim or the third person; or
5. Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function; or
6. Seize or exercise control over any airplane, train, bus, ship or other vehicle.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.


1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

A status conference.....ok so a status conference is where what the hell is supposed to get accomlished here? John's status is pretty much the same: the house, the business, the life he lost at the hands of the state are still lost.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Free Talk Live