Debbie Milke - unschuldig im Todestrakt?

Latest ruling by Judge Mroz


CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ J. Matlack
Deputy



STATE OF ARIZONA VINCE H IMBORDINO

v.

DEBRA JEAN MILKE (A)
MICHAEL D KIMERER
LORI L VOEPEL
LARRY L DEBUS

CAPITAL CASE MANAGER




ORDER ENTERED




The Court has read an article written by J.J. Hensley in the Arizona Republic regarding a press conference held on September 13, 2013, by Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery about this case. The Court was surprised to learn that the State has received a letter from federal prosecutors in late August saying that the statute of limitations had expired on any misconduct by Saldate. The Court has had hearings in this case in which the very issue of whether Detective Saldate is being investigated by the Justice Department and whether he needed to have an attorney was discussed:


August 23, 2013 Discussion held regarding whether Detective Saldate needs a lawyer to represent him in the suppression hearing because the Ninth Circuit referred him to the U.S. Attorney's Office to investigate whether Detective Saldate committed any civil rights violations. Mr. Imbordino, stated that to his knowledge the U.S. Attorney has not taken any action to investigate anyone arising out of this case.


August 30, 2013 Discussion held regarding Detective Saldate’s retention of Mr. Debus as his lawyer to advise him regarding his potential criminal liability. The Court appoints Mr. Debus to advise Detective Saldate for the purposes of the suppression hearing.

September 12, 2013 Mr. Debus confirms that he advised Detective Saldate to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

If the news article is accurate, then the Court finds it curious that the State did not inform this Court about the federal prosecutors’ letter. The State has had numerous opportunities to inform the Court of this development, including at the September 12, 2013 hearing, which was just the day before the press conference.

The Court has also reviewed the State’s Memorandum Regarding Witness Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege which this Court received on September 13, 2013, after Mr. Montgomery’s press conference. This Memorandum asks the Court and Mr. Debus to “conduct a thorough and extensive investigation” before the Court asks Detective Saldtate what his intentions are regarding the invocation of his 5th Amendment privileges. The State makes no mention of the letter in this Memorandum either.

The Court also does not know if Mr. Debus or the Milke defense team knew of the information revealed at a press conference. Neither the Court nor Mr. Debus can make an informed decision if we do not have all the facts. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the State produce the letter, if it exists, from the federal prosecutors to this Court, Mr. Debus and the Milke defense team by no later than September 20, 2013.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the status conference set for September 23, 2013 for Detective Saldate to come to court to tell the Court of his decision is vacated to allow Mr. Debus and the Milke defense team time to review the federal prosecutors’ letter and the information contained in the State’s Memorandum.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that while Detective Saldate need not appear on September 23, 2013, the attorneys for the State and the defense shall appear to discuss scheduling issues. Mr. Debus need not appear if he will inform the Court in advance of the hearing how much time he needs to review the information and what dates he cannot be in court in the months of October and November.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Imbordino shall file a written explanation by September 20, 2013 as to why the State did not inform the Court of the federal prosecutors’ letter and instead chose to reveal the information through a press conference, if in fact the letter exists.

This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp (Archiv-Version vom 23.09.2013). Attorneys are encouraged to review Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 to determine their mandatory participation in eFiling through AZTurboCourt.

http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp (Archiv-Version vom 23.09.2013)

Milke retrial judge sends stern message to Montgomery over withholding letter



The judge in the Debra Milke murder retrial sent a stern message to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery this morning asking why his office had withheld a letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office saying it had no intention of filing criminal charges against the detective who testified that Milke confessed to him in 1989.

Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz asked why she had to read about the letter in an article in The Arizona Republic instead of hearing from the case prosecutor, Deputy County Attorney Vince Imbordino, especially since the possibility criminal charges had been the subject of hearings since Imbordino received the letter.

Last week, former Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate informed the court through his attorney that he intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and would refuse to testify in the case.

In Milke’s first trial, Saldate claimed that Milke confessed to him that she was involved in the 1989 murder of her 4-year-old son, Christopher. Milke was convicted and sent to death row largely on the basis of that alleged confession, which was not recorded and to which there were no witnesses. Milke still claims she never confessed.

But in March, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Milke’s conviction and death sentence because her defense had not been given access to Saldate’s tarnished personnel record detailing alleged deceptions in other cases. The chief judge asked that Saldate be investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to see if Milke’s civil rights were violated.

Saldate subsequently requested an attorney to represent him in a hearing that was scheduled for Sept. 23 to determine whether the confession was admissible in the new trial. Imbordino asked the court to provide an attorney for Saldate on Aug. 23 and Mroz obliged on Aug. 30. That attorney, Larry Debus, then informed the court on Sept. 12 that Saldate may not testify. Mroz responded that if Saldate did not testify, the confession would not be admitted into evidence.

Montgomery has repeatedly stressed to the media that the 9th Circuit ruling was incorrect and that certain court rulings impugning Saldate were incorrect. On Sept. 13, Montgomery held a press conference at which he distributed an Aug. 30 letter from an assistant U.S. Attorney saying that the statute of limitations had run on possible criminal charges against Saldate.

In today’s ruling, Mroz ordered Montgomery and Imbordino to make the letter available to her and to Milke’s defense team, and that Imbordino file a written explanation by Friday “as to why the State did not inform the court of the federal prosecutors’ letter and instead chose to reveal the information through a press conference, if in fact the letter exists.”

Mroz cancelled the Sept. 23 hearing on supressing the confession and ordered the opposing attorneys to appear on that date to discuss the status of the case and scheduling matters.

The County Attorney's Office will not comment while the case is pending.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20130917milke-trial-judge-message-montgomery-letter.html

There are two thing going on here. First is the alleged confession by Ms. Milke to Officer Armando Saldate. This confession, heard only by this officer and with no other way to collaborate the alleged statement, is what sent Ms. Milke to prison. In the US, convicting someone of a crime requires more than just someones word. There must be some other evidence, another witness, a finger print, DNA, etc. This case is unusual because Ms. Milke was convicted by an others word without any other collaborating evidence. Second. Officer Armando Saldate it seems, after an extensive records search, has lied in past cases. The research can point to specific events where this has happened. The US constitutions' 5th amendment states that: "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Without this, an attorney could ask him "Have you ever lied while on the job?" Say Yes, he faces criminal charges; Say No, the research team can prove that he did; and then he faces criminal charges. No mater how the officer answers, he admits to a crime. So he pleads the fifth. If the justice system is strong in this region, Officer Saldate will be brought up charges related to his crimes, i.e. lying under oath (perjury). BUT there is a limit to how many years that the law can try to convict you of a crime, depending on the crime. Murder has no limitations, but perjury may. This case is 20 years old, so it's possible that the statute of limitations for perjury has expired, meaning that officer Saldate got away with it.

Eine kleine Korrektur hier: Richtig ist, dass es um die Frage geht, ob Saldate sein Aussageverweiegerungsrecht nach dem 5. Zusatzartikel wahrnimmt. Unabhängig davon ist jedoch, dass diese Anhörung dazu angesetzt wurde, die Rechtmäßigkeit der Verwendung des dubiosen Polizeiberichtes zu klären. Richterin Rosa Mroz hat bereits klargestellt, dass - wenn Saldate sein Recht wahrnehmen sollte - der Polizeibericht rausfliegt. Dies war eine deutliche 'Wenn - dann' Ankündigung. Saldate kann sich also durchaus noch pro-Debra verdient machen.