Arizona Criminal Procedure question

[DaveInPhx]

What is the name of your state? Arizona

So here's what AZ Local Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 15.1(b)) say about discovery....

"the prosecutor shall make available to the defendant the following material and information within the prosecutor's possession or control:"
(and then goes through all the items they are required to provide, including their list of witnesses)

Then says...

"Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the prosecutor shall disclose the materials and information listed in Rule 15.1(b) not later than...the first pre-trial conference."

I got no list of anything from the prosecutor at either of two PTC's and I don't see anything here that requires a request on my part to trigger this disclosure. Can I object to the prosecution calling any witnesses, including the police officer that issued the citation (criminal speed)? I realize I would have to waive my right to face my accuser, but if it this person is the only witness and their testimony won't be heard, what does it matter?

[The Occultist]

You have to make the request for Discovery.

[DaveInPhx]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

You have to make the request for Discovery.

Is this simply assumed to be true? 15(1)e references a written request by the defendant for certain types of Discovery not included in 15(1)b. If a request by the defendant is required for all forms of discovery, why would the rules only mention certain types when referencing a written request?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to know the foundation for your statement that a request is required when I don't see anything stating this.

Thanks.

[The Occultist]

Discovery has multiple steps. What you seem to be stuck on is called the Disclosure Statements, which is where the parties provide the facts of the case. In this case, that would be what you are being charged with, as well as the fact that officer so and so will testify against you.

The step you're interested in is called Request for Production, and there is where you must submit a written request for whatever documents you need.

[DaveInPhx]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

Discovery has multiple steps. What you seem to be stuck on is called the Disclosure Statements, which is where the parties provide the facts of the case. In this case, that would be what you are being charged with, as well as the fact that officer so and so will testify against you.

The step you're interested in is called Request for Production, and there is where you must submit a written request for whatever documents you need.

As you said, RFP requires a written request, but RFPs are not required per local rules of criminal procedure.

Disclosure, on the other hand, seems to be required by the prosecution without having been requested. If I choose to not make an RFP, what happens if the case goes to trial and the prosecution has failed to provide the required Disclosure?

[The Occultist]

Disclosure means to only go over the facts of the case. Disclosure is where they explain what they have against you, but does not mean they are required to give you the officers notes or any documentation. If you want documentation, you need to request it.

Tell you what, go sit down with a lawyer and see what they say, yeah?

[DaveInPhx]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

Disclosure means to only go over the facts of the case. Disclosure is where they explain what they have against you, but does not mean they are required to give you the officers notes or any documentation. If you want documentation, you need to request it.

Tell you what, go sit down with a lawyer and see what they say, yeah?

For the purposes of my question, I don't care about "documentation". I don't know where you got that idea, but sorry if I lead you to believe that. I am interested *solely* in the initial disclosure for right now.

AZ criminal court rules require that the prosecution disclose their list of witnesses (among other things) at or before the first PTC. They failed to do this so for all I know, they don't intend to call any witnesses.

Now, let's assume I waive my right to Discovery and the prosecution never otherwise discloses their intention to call the officer. What I want to know is when the prosecution calls a witness in this situation, can I simply object on the grounds that the witness was not disclosed to me?

By the way..I did talk to a lawyer. He was very vague in answering my questions and made it very clear that he believed that no one should ever try to represent themselves in court. I tend to disagree with him as I successfully represented myself as a plaintiff in a federal civil law suit.

[racer72]

I realize I would have to waive my right to face my accuser

Please explain where you got this obviously false idea. Amendment 6 of the US Constitution states:

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 wherein 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 defence.

This gives you the right to question any witnesses against you, there is no right to face your accuser.

[Zigner]

This one is easy:

The "rules" you are citing relate to felonies. Unless you have misstated the charge against you, you are not accused of a felony.

[DaveInPhx]

Originally Posted by racer72

This gives you the right to question any witnesses against you, there is no right to face your accuser.

Are you saying that if a witness to a crime is the victim (who would then be an "accuser"), the defendant doesn't have the right to question them?

[DaveInPhx]

Originally Posted by Zigner

This one is easy:

The "rules" you are citing relate to felonies. Unless you have misstated the charge against you, you are not accused of a felony.

Incorrect. 15(1)a is specific to felonies, but what I cited from 15(1)b and c apply to all crimes.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by DaveInPhx

Incorrect. 15(1)a is specific to felonies, but what I cited from 15(1)b and c apply to all crimes.

No, you are wrong...read it more. The entire section is related to felonies.

[DaveInPhx]

Originally Posted by Zigner

No, you are wrong...read it more. The entire section is related to felonies.

False.

15(1)d
(1) In a felony case, at least thirty days prior to trial, or thirty days after a request from the defendant, whichever occurs first, the state shall make available to the defendant a list of the prior felony convictions of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at trial.

(2) In a misdemeanor case, at least ten days prior to trial, the state shall make available to the defendant a list of the prior felony convictions of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at trial.

(3) In a felony case, at least thirty days prior to trial, or thirty days after a request from the defendant, whichever occurs first, the state shall make available to the defendant a list of the prior felony convictions that the prosecutor intends to use to impeach a disclosed defense witness at trial.

(4) In a misdemeanor case, at least ten days prior to trial the state shall make available to the defendant a list of the prior felony convictions that the prosecutor intends to use to impeach a disclosed defense witness at trial.

[Zigner]

You are right, the ENTIRE section doesn't relate to felonies...
But the portion YOU are pinning your hopes on DOES.

Perhaps, though, you should read this:

Rule 1.1
Scope

These rules shall govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in all courts within the State of Arizona except that the Rules of Procedure in Traffic Cases shall continue to apply.


So, in any case, you are looking at the wrong section.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

You have to make the request for Discovery.

100% correct.