arizona republic

Despite efforts to overhaul the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) for the better, two cases of severe child abuse involving malnourishment, neglect and death have made headlines in the Valley recently.

In late May, 3-year-old Alexandra Velazco was found dead in her home in Surprise despite several interactions with DCS before she was even born.

In May 2011, Alexandra and her mother, Rosemary Velazco, both tested positive for amphetamines. She was removed from her parents care for a year after her birth until both Rosemary and Alexandra’s father, Carlos Cruz, completed substance abuse treatment and parenting classes in April 2012. A few months later in July, the case was closed.

However, complaints were made to DCS again earlier this year, and agents removed an infant from their home not knowing that Alexandra and her 6-year-old brother were living there. The two were kept out of sight in a bedroom.

When Alexandra was found, she weighed only 15 pounds, was covered in bruises, lacerations and showed signs of sexual abuse, The Arizona Republic reports.

Joylynne Giebel is another example of a child who died under the watch of DCS. On June 5, DCS got a call that Giebel, 21-months-old, was dead in her home in Mesa. She died six months after DCS received its fifth call for complaints that her stepfather, Andrew Isaacs, abused and neglected her.

She was found with bruises on her face and body, internal trauma and three broken ribs, according to the DCS report.

While this type of extreme abuse most likely isn’t an everyday case for DCS workers, reports indicate that abuse and neglect aren’t uncommon in the state.

Recent data from DCS reports that one out of every 100 children in Arizona is in a form of foster or out-of-home care, and a 2014 comparison of each child protection system in the state by the Annie E. Casey Foundation ranked Arizona’s system 46th in the nation.

Earlier this year, a coalition led by the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest against DCS and Department of Health Services filed a federal class-action lawsuit due to the maintenance of a “dangerous, severely deficient foster care system,” Phoenix New Times reports.

To make matters worse, DCS is also under pressure to take care of 13,000 cases that have been considered inactive and others that haven’t been investigated at all in addition to the active cases workers attend to every day.

Arizona has been working for over a year to improve the system since former Governor Jan Brewer abolished Child Protective Services for a new, cabinet-level system.

Former DCS director Charles Flanagan and current director Greg McKay have made efforts to correct the system by fixing the child abuse hotline, increase staffing and improving the quality of foster families, but the deaths of Alexandra Velazco and Joylynne Giebel bring to light that these changes haven’t been significant enough to overcome the shadow surrounding DCS and child abuse in the state.

Arizona DUI attorney Christopher P. Corso and his team of DUI lawyers at Corso Law Group expect increased DUI checkpoints and DUI arrests this Fourth of July, the Scottsdale law firm announced today.

The Arizona attorney, who previously prosecuted DUIs for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, bases this prediction on the state’s aggressive DUI prosecution in recent years.

In 2014, 389 people were arrested in Arizona on suspicion of drunk driving over three days during the July 4th holiday weekend, ABC 15 reports. The number of arrests increased 27 percent from 2013 due to the large increase in police saturation points.

“A rise in police activity means that more officers are on the roads paying close attention to driver behavior,” Corso said. “Police know Phoenix residents will be out drinking on the Fourth, and they won’t tolerate intoxicated driving or any other traffic violation – even minor offenses.”

Thousands of law enforcement officials worked overtime in 2014 to form an expansive DUI task force that reached across the Valley with 2,237 participating officers and deputies, according to The Arizona Republic. That’s a 55 percent increase from the 1,445 participants in Arizona in 2013.

For many, celebrating Independence Day means backyard barbecues, ball games, fireworks and beer, which is consumed 40 percent more on the Fourth of July, according to Marketplace by American Public Media.

“It’s easy to get carried away and not realize just how much you’ve had to drink,” Corso said. “People get behind the wheel thinking they’re fine to drive, not realizing the harm they could cause to themselves and others.”

If the potentially deadly consequences of drinking and driving aren’t reason enough to plan ahead on the Fourth of July, Corso Law Group suggests considering the severe legal consequences of an Arizona DUI.

Arizona has some of the strictest drunk driving laws in the country, with at least 24 hours of required jail time for all offenders, even first time offenders, as well as high fines and license suspension.

“Understanding the physical and legal harm associated with drunk driving, and taking the initiative to never drive while under the influence is a preventative measure we all can take to stay safe,” Corso said.

Additionally, Corso recommends Arizona residents know important Arizona DUI rights such as the right to remain silent; only provide certain documents such as insurance, registration and identification; and refuse to submit to all field sobriety tests. Blood and alcohol tests are the only tests DUI suspects should agree to.

To schedule a free consultation with Corso Law Group, please visit https://corsolawgroup.com or call (480) 471-4616.

Corso Law Group, PLLC is located at 17470 N. Pacesetter Way Scottsdale, AZ 85255.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens tried to close courtroom doors during part of the retrial of Jodi Arias to accommodate a secret witness testimony, but the testimony has been delayed, and the court remains open to the public, court officials said.

The trial is in the penalty phase with a new jury impaneled last month due to a deadlock in May 2013. The original jury determined that Arias was eligible for the death penalty, but no conclusion was made on which punishment she would receive, The Huffington Post said.

Now, the second jury will determine once again whether Arias will face the death penalty.

At the request of the defense attorneys to Arias, Judge Stephens closed the court Thursday, Oct. 30, for a new testimonial from a witness who wished to remain unidentified in this highly publicized case.

The following Monday, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the public should be allowed to view courtroom testimony during such an important, high-profile case that has garnered attention across the nation, Reuters reports.

As a result of this decision, Stephens is temporarily restricted from taking any further testimony from witnesses while closing doors to the the media and the public.

The Jodi Arias case has been unpredictable from the start, but Stephens taking legal matters into her own hands and causing a media block-out is the latest twist to the story, keeping Arizona, and the rest of the country, on its toes.

Arias, 34, was convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, 30, after he decided to end their relationship. Prosecutors accused her of acting in a jealous rage, but Arias said she acted in self-defense.

Alexander was stabbed more than 30 times, nearly beheaded from a slash to the throat and shot in the forehead. Friends found his body days later in the shower of his Mesa home.

If the new jury deadlocks again, it will be up to a judge to determine whether Arias will be sentenced to life in prison or life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years, The Arizona Republic said.

After a Department of Public Safety (DPS) officer was shot in the face during a routine traffic stop on October 8, the first Arizona Blue Alert was issued, informing residents and the media of the attack and the five suspects who were still on the loose.

The National Blue Alert System is activated when an officer has been killed or seriously injured. The alert disseminates specific information about suspected offenders statewide, including descriptions of the vehicle, license plate and people involved when officials determine that threats to the public and law enforcement still exist.

Arizona authorities pointed to the system as a vital tool in gathering information in the investigation, stating that the blue alert had led to a tip soon after the alert was issued.

“We got calls from citizens who were out there, and they were paying attention,” Phoenix Police Spokesman James Holmes told the Arizona Republic.

Authorities said they later found the suspects’ vehicle at an abandoned house near 29th Avenue and Pima.

In July, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law House Bill 2323, making Arizona the 19th state to have a Blue Alert system. In total, 20 states now use a Blue Alert system to inform the public of an attack on an officer, The National Blue Alert System reports.

Arizona’s first blue alert came after an Arizona officer stopped a vehicle with tinted windows at 3:30 a.m. on Oct. 8 near I-17 and McDowell Road. While talking with the passengers, someone inside the vehicle opened fire and shot the officer twice in the face, ABC 15 said.

Two officers were called for backup and were shot at, but not injured, by the suspects who police identified as two men and three women in a blue 2008 Mercury Sable with Kansas license plates.

Read more about this case here.

Police said, according to ABC 15, that the suspects fled the scene, and within 40 minutes, Arizona’s first ever Blue Alert was issued where electronic highway signs around the state administered the alert, listing details of the car.

The injured officer underwent surgery and the hospital reports the 6-year DPS veteran is in stable condition, ABC 15 said.

Police are currently searching for the attackers.

The last time Arizona hosted the Super Bowl in 2008, a total of 10,409 DUI arrests were made and 937 traffic fatalities occurred that year. Of those deaths, 35 percent were alcohol related.

The risks associated high volumes of people in one area, such as drunk driving and other traffic concerns are lingering issues Arizona must face less than six months before it hosts Super Bowl XLIX, the nation’s largest annual sporting event.

Adjustments are being made in Arizona to accommodate the Super Bowl since Glendale may not have enough space or resources to do so on its own.

The NFL moved the NFL Experience fan event and the media headquarters from Glendale to downtown Phoenix, and notable CEOs and business executives from the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee are expected to raise $35 million to help Glendale and the University of Phoenix put on the event next year, the Phoenix Business Journal reports.

With the event expanding from Glendale to other cities, traffic and transportation safety are factors for local officials to examine.

Super Bowl Sunday ranks as one of the most dangerous times of the year for drunk driving deaths. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on that Sunday and into the following Monday, 43 percent of all traffic fatalities were caused by drunk driving in 2012, Mothers Against Drunk Driving reports.

Due to increased traffic in Glendale during the Super Bowl, drivers will need to be aware of the photo radar cameras positioned across the West Valley. These devices have caused issues for drivers who believe that certain areas have become speed traps that lack consistency when it comes to ticketing, Your West Valley reports.

Last spring, Glendale requested $2 million for public safety costs during the Super Bowl which the Arizona Legislature later rejected.

Despite the rejected request, Glendale City Councilman Gary Sherwood said that the city is ahead of schedule on its commitments to the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee for public safety and transportation, The Arizona Republic said.

In contrast, Arizona Cardinals President Michael Bidwill believes the city isn’t doing enough.

“The city hall people really have done nothing” to support Super Bowl XLIX, Bidwill said in an interview with The Arizona Republic sports columnist Dan Bickley in August.

Former Child Protective Services staffers claim they weren’t the only ones who knew of un-investigated reports but claim they were fired while the agency’s ex-director, Clarence Carter, stays put.

At least five former Child Protective Services staffers said in a report that Carter knew cases were not actively being investigated and that he had knowledge of the agency’s attempt to cover up the problem years before the investigation of the agency broke out.

However, Clarence Carter told the Department of Public Safety, after the discovery that over 6,000 reports of child abuse and neglect had gone un-investigated, that he had no knowledge of cases not being assigned or handled until November 2013.

The former CPS employees, on the other hand, are saying that discussions between Carter and at least five others about the neglected reports took place starting in 2011, according to the Arizona Republic.

Governor Jan Brewer is currently reworking CPS (learn more about Gov. Brewer’s changes to CPS here) by giving it a new name, the Division of Child Safety and Family Services, and changing the infrastructure of the agency altogether. She appointed Charles Flanagan to replace Carter as director of the agency, but Carter remains involved in the division.

Both Flanagan and Carter have since fired five former staffers and the deputy director of programs at Department of Economic Security, Sharon Sergent, who was involved in the development of an informal policy that designated unassigned child abuse and child neglect reports as “Not Investigated”.

Thousands of cases were unworthy of investigation “NI” under this policy so that when unassigned reports were looked up, they at least had the appearance of a legitimate classification, the Arizona Republic reports.

While Sergent and others such as, Tracey Everitt who was one of the five fired employees involved in the NI process, claim that Carter was informed of the policy all along, yet Carter has not been linked to the issue and is no where near being terminated like Sergent or Everitt.

While some support Carter, like Rep. Steve Smith R-Maricopa and Flanagan, Carter’s role as the former leader of CPS is enough fuel for many others to believe that he should be fired from the agency altogether, disregarding whether or not he knew of the NI policy.

“To me, it’s a problem if he knew, and it’s a problem if he didn’t know,” Rep. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix, told The Arizona Republic.

“As leader of the organization, he should have known about that, and if he didn’t, why didn’t he? Was he not checking with the supervisors?”

Despite contrasting opinions from state officials, speculation and reports from multiple former CPS employees, Carter remains in position, and the Governor’s Office has made no motions indicating that will change.

According to an Arizona Supreme Court enactment updating Ethical Rule 3.8, prosecutors are required to turn over to defense attorneys any evidence showing the possible innocence of a convicted person, and prosecutors must take it upon themselves to get the conviction reversed if they find “clear and convincing evidence” proving the defendant’s innocence, the Arizona Republic reports.

The role of the prosecutor is to represent all citizens, “and therefore they, like judges, are held to higher standard and should help remedy any errors that result from our sometimes imperfect system of justice,” Supreme Court and Chief Rebecca White Berch wrote in an email to the Republic.

Berch said that Ethical Rule 3.8 supports the notion that it is the duty of prosecutors to act as “ministers of justice” who work to represent all citizens fairly rather than seek convictions at all costs; however, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and other attorneys are rejecting the new rule.

A statement made under Montgomery’s name claims that the change is unnecessary.

“We have no real-world examples of prosecutors discovering evidence of the nature that would trigger a duty under this rule,” because “prosecutors in Arizona already fully embrace their roles as ministers of justice when (it) comes to righting wrongful convictions,” the Republic reports.

Montgomery’s objection cited that prosecutors were already reexamining their convictions. An example in his file said that his office was recently working to drop charges against people pleading guilty to “huffing,” the act of intentionally inhaling vapors as a way to get high, because the law had been misinterpreted.

Although this may be true in regards to those specific cases, the Republic reported a case that challenges the perception that prosecutors are diligent when it comes to turning over exculpatory evidence.

Henry Hall was sentenced to death in 1999 for the murder of Ted Lindberry who was killed due to a blow to the head by Hall and dumped in the desert, according to testimony made by a jailhouse informant who claimed Hall had described the events to him.

In 2001 Hall’s conviction was overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court due to juror misconduct, and Lindberry’s remains, which weren’t found at the time of Hall’s conviction, were discovered in a location differing from the informant’s testimony with an intact skull.

Despite the promising new evidence, a series of unfavorable events followed for Hall. Lindberry’s remains were promptly returned to his family and cremated, but Hall’s defense attorney didn’t know about the discovery of the body and the condition of the skull until about a year after the cremation, according to court documents, making the exculpatory evidence virtually useless.

During retrial, prosecutors wanted to use the informant’s original testimony, but Superior Court Judge Roland Steinle didn’t allow it because the information was proved false and the informant had died. Steinle did allow the defense to inform the jury of the situation with the discovered evidence as punishment to prosecutors for not previously disclosing such crucial information, but that didn’t necessarily help Hall or the defense.

Prosecutors were not satisfied with the idea of losing a conviction and took the case to the Arizona Court of Appeals, still insisting on using the original, false testimony. The appeal and a request by the defense to dismiss the case for prosecutorial misconduct were denied in 2011.

There’s no guaranteeing that Hall’s conviction would have been overturned if Rule 3.8 existed at the time, but the muddled situation wouldn’t have been an issue because prosecutors would have known how to properly and fairly proceed with the new evidence.

Hall, having already spent 13 years in prison, was offered by prosecutors a plea to second-degree murder and a prison sentence of another 16 years.

Citizens rely on those in power to fight for justice under all circumstances, and although it’s a complicated and controversial process, amendments to the system and additional ethical rules and improvements like Rule 3.8 will help law enforcement, prosecutors and others work more transparently in the future.

Arizona prosecutors frequently find themselves under the magnifying glass for their behavior and tactics in court, and the results of this type of close examination tend to reveal several forms of error and misconduct during trial.

Although prosecutor faults are identified, they are very rarely corrected. In fact, many of the trials that include prosecutor misconduct remain unaffected and unchanged despite the recognition of errors during trial. In fact, prosecutors themselves do not usually face any serious consequences.

According to a report by the Arizona Republic reviewing every Arizona Supreme Court opinion on death sentences since 2002, prosecutor misconduct has been alleged in half of all capital cases ending in death sentences.

“Of 82 cases statewide, prosecutorial misconduct was alleged on appeal by defense attorneys in 42 and the court found improprieties or outright misconduct in 18 instances. But only two of those death sentences were reversed because of the improprieties, and only two prosecutors were disciplined,” The Arizona Republic reports.

The seriousness of these offenses ranged from excessive sarcasm to much more serious issues such as failing to disclose evidence that might have benefitted the defendant and introducing false testimony. Most of these offenses, regardless of their severity, were identified as “harmless error” by the court.

Harmless error is defined by the Federal Evidence Review as the recognition of mistakes made in court that are not severe enough to warrant retrial.

Several examples of this can be seen in Arizona courts, but their consideration is dependent upon judges at the appellate level to decide what information may have influenced a lay person’s opinion of guilt or innocence.

The first American prosecutor to be disbarred for misconduct during a capital case occurred in Arizona in 2004 when Pima County prosecutor Ken Peasley was caught presenting testimony he knew to be false. It took seven years to disbar Peasley, the Arizona Republic said.

In 2012, Andrew Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon, a former Maricopa County attorney and one of his deputies at the time, were disbarred for “filing criminal charges and a civil racketeering lawsuit against Superior Court judges and Maricopa County officials to further Thomas’ political goals,” the Arizona Republic said. Neither was charged criminally, and more than $5 million was spent by the county in legal fees to settle lawsuits from judges and officials.

Most recently, the Pinal County Chief Deputy Richard Wintory has been the focus of an investigation by the State Bar of Arizona for inappropriate contact with a member of a murder suspect’s defense team. He will most likely face minor sanctions from the State Bar, the Arizona Republic said.

In response to these prosecutorial issues, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said he has increased prosecutor training and maintains an ethical committee to keep track of the actions of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys. He objects to the addition of a newly proposed ethical rule requiring prosecutors to report if they learn of new evidence after a conviction that may have been exculpatory.

However, Montgomery has also said that he is unaware of a lot of prosecutor misconduct and often times does not believe it is his duty to keep them accountable.

“The attorneys are trying the case, I’m not going to step in,” he said. “They’re on their own. And if they need to be put in their place, that’s the job of the judge. It’s the job of the defense attorney to object.”

There is evidence that prosecutors are aware of the lack of discipline for their errors in court.

“In the 30 years I’ve been a prosecutor, I’ve had many people file complaints and lawsuits against me, but I’ve never been disciplined,” Wintory said regarding his own misconduct throughout his career.

While mistakes and misconduct occur, having an experienced and knowledgeable attorney can help even the playing field.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Warren Granville denied former Phoenix police officer Richard Chrisman’s request to have his aggravated assault charge thrown out on Nov. 13.

In 2010, Chrisman was charged with murder and animal cruelty after he responded to a domestic violence call and it ended with the death of 29-year-old Daniel Rodriguez, in a south Phoenix trailer according to the Huffington Post.

The Arizona Republic reported in November that Chrisman and his defense attorney Craig Mehrens once again sat in Granville’s courtroom in an effort to get the aggravated assault charge thrown out due to misconduct committed by the prosecutor, Deputy County Attorney Juan Martinez, throughout the trial.

Chrisman was found guilty of aggravated assault in September by a jury after putting a gun to head of Rodriguez while answering a domestic violence call in October 2010 with his partner Phoenix Police Officer Sergio Virgillo.

The critical testimony made by Virgillo opposed Chrisman’s statements, stating that Rodriguez was unarmed and backing away with his hands up when Chrisman fired two shots.

The trial ended in a hung jury when it came to convicting Chrisman of second-degree murder and animal cruelty and Chrisman was granted a new trial scheduled for early next year.

Mehrens attempted to get the aggravated assault charges dropped against Chrisman, which he will be sentenced for on Dec. 20, stating that Martinez has been misleading throughout the trial according to The Arizona Republic.

After only 45 minutes, Granville denied Chrisman’s request to have his aggravated assault verdict tossed out and scheduled a new trial for Jan. 27, 2014 for the remaining undecided charges.

Racial profiling and wrongful arrests are issues facing Arizona due to procedures surrounding immigration laws, but U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow is imposing stricter rulings in order to clean up Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s controversial conduct and keep law enforcement accountable, according to a report from the Arizona Republic.

Cases involving racial profiling sparked the need for Snow’s stricter impositions. Examples from the Arizona Republic include Manuel de Jesus Ortega Malendres, who was legally visiting Cave Creek when he claimed to have been unlawfully detained for nine hours outside of a church in an area where people are known to seek day labor.

After the Melendres case, two Hispanic siblings from Chicago complained of racial profiling from deputies, and the Hispanic husband to an assistant of former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon claimed that nearby white motorists were ignored while he was cited for traffic violations and detained unlawfully.

Four months ago, Snow ruled that Arpaio’s immigration enforcement tactics were a violation of the constitutional rights of thousands of Latinos. On Wednesday, Snow issued a follow-up ruling with the proper operations that should be a part of the daily routine at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The plaintiffs in these cases did not focus on monetary damages in court, but rather wanted to enforce elements that the sheriff and deputies have long resisted, including, “a declaration that spells out what deputies may or may not do when stopping potential suspects, and a court-appointed monitor to make sure the agency lives by those rules,” the Arizona Republic reported.

Snow, recognizing the demand for the requests made by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona lead by the group’s legal director Dan Pochoda, aims to include cameras in every deputy’s car, increase data collection and reporting, implement a community-advisory board and a court-appointed monitor. These rulings demonstrate steps toward preventing future discrimination, however, compliance from Arpaio and the deputies is needed to do so successfully.

MCSO plans to appeal the ruling but continue to try to comply with the court order while the appeal is pending, according to Arpaio’s attorney. If the agency refuses to comply, a court-ordered oversight will be issued or MCSO officials could be found in contempt of federal court. Read more here on an example of failure to comply in which a lawsuit and oversight brought to Sheriff Arpaio in 1977 took 30 years to be lifted.

Besides compliance from officials, budget is another leading constraint facing these rulings. Snow plans to use all possible funding from MCSO to pay for necessary resources before cutting into the funding of other agencies.

“I am not going to be involved in relieving you from the requirements of that order because you can’t afford it,” Snow said in the article regarding the cost of these rulings. “Be sure you understand that.”

Arpaio’s office has practiced his controversial style of immigration enforcement for many years, so it is uncertain exactly how he and his deputies will work with the new rulings.

“He came to this reform, if you want to call it that, as a very unwilling party. It’s a very big problem,” University of Pittsburgh professor and national expert on racial profiling David Harris said in the Arizona Republic article. “Will he drag his heels? Will he be a willing participant? Has he seen the light? Those questions, I think, remain to be answered. He has made mistakes that have put him where he is now. The question is whether he wants to correct them.”