Guilty AZ Charged: The Law Behind the Crimes

The Confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution gives criminal defendants the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. The interpretation of this right at the U.S. Supreme Court has changed significantly over the past 20 years beginning with Crawford v. Washington. This term, the Supreme Court once again addressed this issue in a case coming from our very own Arizona courts. This episode reviews several of the cases that brought us to Smith v. Arizona, what the decision means for current criminal practitioners, and tries to predict where we go from here. Conversations like this one are necessary as we decide what the fallout from this decision will be in ongoing cases.

Oral Argument from the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Arizona.The case deals with the ability of the government to call an expert who relies on another experts findings to testify at trial. Typically this has come up in the field of scientific testing such as drug, DNA, and blood testing. The court had considered several cases previously on whether this practice violates the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution.The case was argued on January 10, 2024.

Arizona was recently the flashpoint for one of the most intensely debated issues in US politics today: abortion. After a ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court, people from across the country voiced their opinions on whether abortion in Arizona should be more freely accessible or more restricted. What was almost totally ignored, however, were the two laws that the Supreme Court was considering and what they were actually deciding. In this episode, we briefly review the history of abortion in Arizona, and we take a deeper look at the argument at the Supreme Court, what was the question that they were asked to consider, what their ruling said, and then a look forward to see where abortion laws are going in our state. Understanding this issue might not change our minds about abortion, but it can help us understand more about criminal law in Arizona and statutory construction which is key to truly understanding criminal law and policy here in State 48.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled in a case that has gained significant attention across the country. While the subject of the laws - abortion - may be captivating to most people, the idea of interpreting two laws passed decades apart is one of judicial construction that courts are tasked with every day across the state. Since both of these laws include criminal elements, it is a great opportunity to see how the law works and issues that arise in criminal law in more depth. It also is a clear example of how criminal laws affect everyone and are a reflection of societal priorities. An analysis episode related to the argument and the ruling will be released shortly.

Zach Murphy breaks down sentencing in Arizona. While it is something that criminal attorneys deal with every day, it can be daunting to the lay person and public policy professionals alike. There are a number of factors – both legal and practical – that must be understood to truly understand what is happening in a criminal case.This episode goes over plea negotiation and the laws that drive it from a high level view.

The idea of priviliged communications is something that attorneys are very familiar with. The other privileges are not something we deal with as often in practice, so when they do come up sometimes practitioners jump too quickly to either dismiss the claim or think there is no way around it. Here we discuss some of the issues related to Clergy-penitent privilege. This privilege has been in the news recently in Arizona, and understanding the legal and policy issues related to it can help us be better prepared to answer questions that may arise, push for necessary changes, or represent clients.

In the trial court, statutory Victim was ordered to allow Defendant's expert to examine GPS data from his vehicle. Victim objected under victim's rights provisions and general protections in the Arizona and U.S. Constitution. The Supreme considers whether ordering the Victim to give the Defendant's expert access to the vehicle violated his rights.

Durand was charged with fraudulent schemes and artifices with several victims. One of those victims is an employee for MCAO, the prosecuting agency. Durand filed a motion to disqualify the office citing Alexander. The Supreme Court here considers whether disqualification is required under the facts present here.

Organized retail theft has been in the news across the country with high profile reporting like shoplifting related crimes have never seen. On this episode we talk to Doug Mangum, a prosecutor focusing on ORT crimes, and Mike Powell, an organized retail crime manager dealing with this problem from the private sector across the southwest. They share some of the legal and practical ways Arizona government and businesses are dealing with this growing area of concern.

DUI case law is one of the most well developed areas of law in Arizona, but there continues to be statutory changes and cases affecting the way we handle DUIs across the state. One of the more substantive cases of the last few years was Valenzuela dealing with ADOT's Admin Per Se form. Here Adam Susser and Jake discuss what led up to the decision and some of the results we have seen so far.