In a truly bizarre incident, a sheriff’s deputy in Maricopa County, Arizona charged with defending the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe stole confidential files from a defense attorney. This was a flagrant violation of attorney-client privilege, and Donahoe ordered the deputy, Adam Stoddard, to publicly apologize by this Monday. Now, the sheriff of Maricopa County is Joe Arpaio–the notorious hardass that turned the county lockup into a tent city. Arpaio has refused to allow Stoddard to apologize even if he wishes to, and Stoddard now states that the judge’s order forced him to either lie because he is not sorry for his actions or act in contempt of court.
The situation raises a whole host of questions. If the judge orders Stoddard to be imprisoned, who will carry out the order? Arpaio? It seems unlikely. Will Donahoe ask another law enforcement agency to arrest Stoddard? If so, will Arpaio intervene?
One of the most common objections to libertarian anarchism is that if two private courts disagreed on a verdict, then no verdict would ever be reached and the courts would have to resort to conflict, which is what Ayn Rand called a “blank out”. That seems unlikely to me as private courts would have every incentive to avoid physical conflict with one another–war is not cheap, after all–but regardless government does not solve this problem. Even when a court makes a ruling, it is completely ineffective if no one is willing to enforce it. As Andrew Jackson famously (but possibly apocryphally) remarked after Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Georgia could not enforce its laws on the Cherokee, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” The “law” is nothing more than who can muster the most guns.
Story via The Agitator. I made the same point about a very different case back in 2007 here.
Yes, it’s called checks and balances. Courts should ensure their decisions are legal and constitutional. Police agencies need to enforce only those orders and rulings that are constitutional and legal. To order anyone to make apologies is insincerity at its very core serving only to ridicule the perceived offender. The court in this case is trying to be expedient in its resolution.
Deputy Adam Stoddard not only gives conflicting reasons of why he committed a crime he and his comrades arrogantly thumb noses at rule of law while endangering public safety.
A more flagrant disregard for the rule of law and the rights of the people is hard to come by. No less than the founding fathers of this great country, put together the bill of rights to protect the people from these very abuses.
This will hopefully lead to Stoddard’s day in court where a jury can sort it out and he can experience the desire for his rights to be protected. The rule of law applies to all and combined with freedom of the press keeps us free from tyranny.
Stoddard broke the law by violating no less than 2 amendments to the constitution when he violated the attorney’s Forth Amendment right and the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The fourth amendment is quite clear. For there to be probable cause, a person has to swear under oath that he or she saw the exact information or item that the government is in search of, and knows where it is, and is willing to swear under threat of prosecution for perjury as to the exact item and its whereabouts. In other words, fishing expeditions by government employees, AKA police is illegal and unconstitutional and definitely applies to attorney papers and effects.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
When the prosecutor is allowed to search through counsel’s papers and notes, the offense constitutes collusion and the defendant is actually being deprived of Counsel.
An attorneys notes about shortcomings, misrepresentations, lies and tactics of the prosecutions case are the tools which he uses to pick apart the prosecutions case, and to have any value must never be viewed by the prosecution unless presented to the jury.
Only evidence is to be shared, any more is illegal and constitutes a mistrial.
The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the defendant to provide information pertaining to their case without fear that the information will be revealed to others, namely the prosecution, this encourages full disclosure in the pursuit of justice.
If the Arizona attorney general allows this crime and contempt for the law to go unpunished it will be proof enough to the people of America that Arizona prosecutors are corrupt and their convictions not credible.