Free Additional Attachments to Main Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 58
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118-NVW Document 113-10 Filed O3/28/2007 Page1 of 4

g E 2 1 · ·
Q ` ?
·‘x\’··,_.__; .·:.·~..___ _
• nfl-" -;4.:T -_$:’:',·j M. · * L, vfi `j·;,
g `- W" O` A
-12 t._ ,.1:;:
Q 1 IN TEE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE S@A£E_QF`A§TZONA—m'
*·s .'; ·
s 22 n ,.
§ 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA'“ J J5
5 STATE OF ARIZONA, )
§_ 1 NO. CR—l237ll
fg 4 Plaintiff, 1 -
n, 1
gl 5 VS. ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
. L- - 2 . N $..4
aq ) OF VOTION `OR WE" TREAT
L B STEVEN CRAIG JAMES, )
1 (Assigned to the Honorable
§‘ 7 Defendant. 1 James Moeller)
gd . - .
_g 9 The issues before the Court are:

y 10 l. Whether the Defendant has been denied a defense
Q ll which he would have otherwise been entitled to by reason of the
_-. l2 administration of a dru or drugs to him b the State.
g .
“ 15 2. Whether the Defendant was denied effective recre-
’§[ 14 sentation of counsel for the following reasons:
D (E.) The G.I`L1Q‘ OI CLILIQS LH QUSSCLOH C1J..SQ’.1lS€C. an
%§ ,
§ 16 otherwise psychotic mental state;
_w L7 (b) Counsel was given no indication, either by
2 is . . - . . . _ - ,
egg the actions or his client or the results or the
19 . . . . , . . . . _ .
_, `QSYCHLECILC €VE.lU.E*.‘C..LOI'1S, Cfldt his client had C1&mO¤=
` 20 _ . . __ . .
A S ¤.I&‘CEC1 &.O&II'&I1•.. b€£'1E3.VlOL°.
.,,_»,».», 21 ‘ A , . . J_. -
a 3. Whether the administration of the drug or GZUQS
g 22 ·
A in question so tainted the evaluations by the court—appointed
psychologists as to mane their evaluations misleading to botn
t COUI?. and COUIISEI.
25 . , . . . . . .
_,, 3 4. whether the administration or the GIUQ or drugs
;ii;iiji;ii 26 t . . U .. . . - -
,~ ...,,, by the State should have been disclosed to derense counsel under
EALELTON. EDWAé?.DS, /-5
NOVAK P. .
...., .:“ ATTORNEYS AT LAW
M ._.,., 1018 W. ROOSEVELT ST.
taaozmx. ARIZONA 2:007
i rznsruowa
254-2171 .
2574210
J. H {
Case :OO—cv—O1118-NVW Document 113-10 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 2 014

= K` ` ·¤) , I
. ' 2** —»’ J
§ · the Criminal Rules or Discovery and case law as set rortn in
Q 2 the leading case of Brady v. Maqvland, 373 U.S. 83 (1.963) .
5 ’y·‘ ; ,
, 5 5. Whether the drug or drugs dispensed under the
4 auspices of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department affected Q
§l~, 5 the Defendant's demeanor when he testified. `
gv .
Y
‘3dr33 I 6 6. Whether the Defendant had a right to have the jury
§_; 7 assess his demeanor in the absence of the drug or drugs which I
8 had been administered by the State.
. . . . . . , -
24; 9 In reviewing tne case law on this subject, tne case or .
10 State v. Murphy, 56 Wash.2d 76l, 355 P.2d 323 (l960) is instruc-
d 1 .. . . . - . , . -. . .
~ lt tive. In that case, the Derendant, in a rirst QEQIEE murder
ng; 12 trial, was administered tranquilizers prior to his taking the
I
It 15 stand. The court concluded that the accused had been denied a
a 4 . . . .. . . , ,.
gat 1* substantial constitutional right since tnere was a reasonable
as
l° possibility that his attitude, appearance and demeanor, as ob-
ie _ F, . . . . ,_ _.. . g, . .` ,_
gp served by tne jury, had been substantia-ly ini-uenced oy the
My 17 drugs. ‘
· is _, . - . __ . . .
, In une case at bar, tne DEI€HG&Hu was not only denied
19 . . . . . .
· -i·— the right to have his demeanor assessed by the jury, but also
E 20 . . ~ - - . .
~ dd·d the right tc claim the derense or insanity.
- 21 , . . . . . .,
g. c Attempts have been médé to do away with insanity as
22 _ _ __ _ _ {
a legal derense; however, ir the State is allowed to treat
§” 25 . - . . . . - - . .
g derendants ror their mental derects or diseases and render them
yy competent and/or sane ror purposes oi trial, without the know-
25 i _ _ _
$41 ledge or consent cf counsel, the defense of insanity will be
2S _ _
ar rendered a nullity by the invidious and covert machinations of
g ALSTON.EDWARDS. ·
ay &NGVM{RC
mA§F`3RNEYS AT LAW — 2 -= I
( mzooszvzrrsr.
moamx. .mz¤~.\ mm
I rzrzmouz I3 3 2
§ 2:4-zm
157-8210
¤§a~ _
a Cas 2:OO—cv-01118-NVW Documsnt113—1O Fnled O3/28/2007 Page30f4

§¥ 2 1 1 _ ’ _ ' `
V *+1 1
5 _ · I} qi. .4 g
li" 1 an Orwellian state. I
gw 2 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this rofzday of October, 1982. 1
1 T; 5 ALSTON, EDWARDS & NOVAK, P.C.
7, 4 ` .
5 BY —. 4 " _ _...“ ,-,,1.-
§‘ Terry H. Pillinger
? 8 1018 West Roosevelt Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
§_ 7 Attorneys for Defendant
C
1 8
§i 9 COPY of the foregoing
j was nested/delivered this _ ·
10 28th day of October, 1982,
. W to: V
21 ll
g` Hon. James Moeller, Judge
L2 of the Superior Court ·
g llth Floor, Central Court Bldg.
L 15 201 West Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003
, 14
g. Myrna Parker -
1 r»r· 15 Deputy County Attorney
101 W. Jefferson, 4th Fl.
g 15 Phoenix, AZ 85003
Y 17 °
g ia ,»·»-/‘ ,,.. » ’”7Z‘ 4 \` ‘ ”'z l.
W x' /ée¢¢Z2 ..' A#¤
19 y ‘
E ¤¤ .
21 ·
E 22
{ 23
24
E 25 1
i _ 2S
LSTON,EDWARD& I
axovixpr.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
31;%; “°£§€“’·§§B%, ; é
réfzruogg "3"
254-2177
257-82lO
¤§>~
C se 2:OO—cv-O1118—NVW Document 113-10 Filed O3/28/2007 Page40f4 I

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 113-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 113-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 113-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 113-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 4