Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

AFF IDAVIT
State of Arizona )
) ss.
County of Maricopa )
Florence Bruemmer, being first duly sworn upon her oath, hereby deposes and says:
l. That I represented Steve Cordell Dobson on appeal as an associate to attorney Anders
Rosenquist, Jr. As such, I assisted Mr. Rosenquist in the preparation and filing ofthe appellate brief
in United States v. Steve Cordell Dobson before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in No. O3- 10665
(D.C.C. No. CR-O2-0155-PHX-JAT). I was also responsible for arguing the case before the
appellate court as well as assisted in the preparation and filing of the petition for certiorari in the
United States Supreme Court.
2. I conducted an extensive review of the trial record which included reviewing transcripts
of all proceedings in the underlying case. Only after this review, did I assist in preparing an appellate
brief raising all issues which we believed were appropriate based on the law and the underlying facts.
3. As to Steve Cordell Dobson’s claim that my performance was deficient on appeal based
on the failure to raise the undermentioned issues, I make the following avowals.
a) As to the claim that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence of a video tape.
There was only one video tape which was admitted into evidence and portions ofthe video tape were
played on numerous occasions for the jury. Accordingly, we believed that this would have been a
fiivolous ground on appeal.
b) As to the brief communication between a juror and Assistant United States
Attorney (AUSA) Andrew Pacheco, based on a review ofthe record, we believed that the Court, with
all parties present, made an appropriate inquiry into the nature and content of the communication.
We believed that the communication was de nzinimus and the communication did not involve the
underlying facts of the case. We did not believe that the defendant suffered any prejudice and that
there was no reasonable possibility that the communication influenced the verdict. Accordingly, we
believed it would have been a frivolous ground on appeal.
c) As to the double jeopardy claim, case law is well established that a conviction for
the commission of a substantive offense and a conspiracy to commit the offense are two distinct
crimes and the plea of double jeopardy is no defense to a conviction for both offenses. Pinkerton
1
Case 2:02-cr—00155-JAT Document 333-2 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 2

v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). See also, United States v. Rubalcaba, 811 F .2d 491 (9* Cir.
1987). Accordingly, we believed this would have been a frivolous ground on appeal.
Further the affiant sayeth naught.
FLORENCE BRUEMMER
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 8 day of December, 2006 by
FLORENCE BRUEMMER. ’
{ ~~~.. 2; .;;.;;.5;. .... ,
¢ 5/%;*; Karen Anne Postlethwait { Our}! Public
{ N¤¤¤fy F’ublic·Sraw¤1A;az°n. {
; %`,j;,,** MARMJOPA coumv t
ji/Egggk . KQ 6lQ1O
My mmission expires:
2
Case 2:02-cr-00155-JAT Document 333-2 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:02-cr-00155-JAT

Document 333-2

Filed 12/22/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cr-00155-JAT

Document 333-2

Filed 12/22/2006

Page 2 of 2