arizona lawyer referral service

♪♪ >> ted: coming up next on "arizona horizon" -- it. federal prosecutors will charge sheriff joe arpaio with criminal contempt of court. we'll talk about it. and also, tonight, how to get information for voting on the

retention of judges. and we'll hear from a local community action agency. those stories next on "arizona horizon." >> "arizona horizon" is made possible by contributions from the friends of arizona pbs, members of your pbs station.

thank you! >> ted: good evening and welcome to "arizona horizon." i'm ted simons. federal prosecutors say they will charge maricopa county prosecutors say that he willfully ignored a judge's orders in a racial profiling

case. >> the criminal portion of it deals with the state of mind of the sheriff. willful. intentional. that type of attitude. and it just isn't there. and i'm confident that we will

convince the trier of fact that he is not in criminal contempt in anyway. he's been in law enforcement for 57 years. he was with dea for most of his earlier career, he's been the sheriff since 1992. people that know him, that know

this is not a man that violates or snubs orders of courts. >> for the chief law enforcement officer of maricopa county to be found guilty of contempt of court, it would be huge for us, it would mean he would have to leave office. it would mean -- it would be

done to him what he has done to others, but what is more important for us than to see joe arpaio behind bars is to end the culture and racial profiling he's established not only in maricopa county but the entire state of arizona. >> ted: joining us to talk about

the legal aspects of the arpaio case, former u.s. attorney for arizona, paul charlton, he's currently a partner at steptoe & johnson and stephen montoya, attorney for the firm of montoya, lucero & pastor. what's going on here? >> you'll recall there was a

formal, if you will, for the department of justice to continue to bring charges against joe arpaio and others. the department of justice understanding a surprise move, announced they were going to, in fact, bring charges against joe arpaio.

and for others reasons we can get into later on, they were not yet going to bring charges against the other individuals who were referred to the department of justice for prosecution. >> ted: only arpaio charged? was that a bit of a surprise?

>> i can't say it was. sheriff arpaio has said ad nauseam that he's the sheriff and that he's in charge. this is the fruit of that. he's the sheriff, he's in charge. as he admits, the buck stops with him of the responsibility

is his. he's the primary target. he was the primary wrongdoer. >> ted: the two aides and his defense attorney mentioned by judge snow, are they off the hook? >> i don't think they're off the hook.

i think they'll be -- there will be a delay in considering what charges if any to pursue against them, but i really do think the main target is the man elected to the position and that would be sheriff arpaio, who admitted he was in charge. >> ted: again, this case

involves criminal contempt of court. a brief overview, please. >> you heard his lawyer, mel mcdonald talk about the salient process for judge snow and the department of justice. all of his lawyers agree he was in contempt of court, failed to

follow the court eight orders. the debate becomes whether or not that was intentional refusal or something less than the department of justice agrees now with judge snow and say we agree it was intentional, the contempt was criminal and we're going to go forward with a

criminal charge. >> ted: has arpaio been officially charged? not yet, correct? >> i think that probably happen dad. >> ted: oh, it did happen today? ok. >> i believe the judge ordered

the filing to happen. >> d: correct. >> ted: do we know today d.a. if it's going to be a jury trial? >> no, paul and i were talking about that before the show, i don't think we know that, however, it's my view that he's not entitled to a jury trial for

a few reasons, first. he's being charged with an offense that would result in a penalty of no more than six months in jail. so i believe because it's a so-called petty offense or a misdemeanor that he's in the entitled to a jury trial.

i know he believes under a criminal statute that indicates that in some criminal contempt cases you're not entitled to a jury trial, that he -- or that you are entitled to a jury trial, he thinks that statute is applicable. i disagree, because first of

all, the government of the united states ultimately was a party in this case because you remember, the united states sued sheriff arpaio as well and that action was consolidated into the may length dallas case -- the mahendra case. but there's another reason, the

nature of the contempt, the statute is unapplicable if the contempt arises during the adjudication did of the underlying case itself. that's what happened in this there was an order and an injunction and judge snow made voluminous findings that sheriff

arpaio -- voluminous findings, that he violated it and that it transpired in the context of the underlying case i don't think he's entitled to a jury trial. and in some ways this is old hat. sheriff arpaio has had his chance, his lawyers have had

their chance to demonstrate to the finder of fact it wasn't intentional and they overwhelmingly lost. judge snow made paragraph after paragraph of the voluminous findings, shall detailing the evidence -- detailing the evidence that sheriff arpaio's

contempt of court was, in fact, i think it's going to be a slam dunk against sheriff arpaio and i think judge bolton, a tough judge, is going to come down exactly the way her colleague, who is also a very tough judge came down. >> ted: the idea because -- the

six-month cap which i think most folks saw as surprising or curious or needed a better explanation. why was that put in place and y was that put in place in part to keep it away from a jury trial? >> stephen's analysis of the law is exactly correct in the sense

there's going to be a debate. as you pointed out, under the constitution, we are all of us entitled to a jury trial when charged with an felony offense but it's a six-month incarceration or less, you're not entitled to a jury trial and the government for sound

reasons, think i we would agree, has gone to the judge and said, your honor, we had like you to be the finder of fact, not a jury. and no, your honor, we want a jury, we want those people who will forever follow and do joe arpaio's point of view on this

and that's why we want a jury. that's yet to be decided of the legal issues will have to be weighed on by the judge and because this really has not been territory fred tread, this is the kind of debate that -- that judge bolton has to make a decision on for the first time

in this state. >> ted: how much time to make the decision? >> not a lot of time, i believe she's scheduled a trial for early december. i don't think it will take her a lot of time. it is, however, ultimately going

to take somebody a lot of time because sheriff arpaio has a right to appeal. which he frequently exercises, albeit unsuccessfully. so this is going to be another case that could be drawn out for years and is going to cost the taxpayer another large bundle of

money, arguably, i know the county is saying it doesn't have to pay because it's a criminal proceeding, i think that's also to be the subject of litigation. >> ted: the obstruction of justice, i know there was an avenue, an investigation referral, i believe -- not a --

was there a referral for obstruction of justice as well. >> there was. as to obstruction of justice against sheridan, bailey and joe arpaio's lawyer, we think there may be a statute of limitation, the charges may have been brought too late and

interestingly, it's the judge who said, i'm not sure you're right. let's wait and see if you are that issue is yet another to be decided. >> ted: that's still out there? >> correct. >> ted: when you were describing

things, there was a nixonian dissent going on here, it wasn't necessarily what he did. it was not following the judge's orders, correct? >> very proudly not following the judge's orders. expressly saying, i'm the sheriff, what i say goes, as

judge snow specifically found based on trial testimony, he intentionally repeatedly ignored the judge's order so i feel there was no choice but to hold him accountable for that. the timing issue, i think the justice department had to do it quickly, as paul pointed out,

there might be a statute of limitations problem. some will claim it's too late. you can't sit on these types of charge, you have to bring them as quickly as you reasonable can, i think the justice department should have brought the charges more quickly so this

could have been resolved before or against him before the election. >> ted: can a judge put a clock on the statute of limitations. >> you can't, but you can invite the lawyers as judges do to give assistance in understanding when the statute of limitations

actually runs. it's interesting, the department of justice made this announcement on the eve of the typically its policy is to wait before bringing or announcing charges until after a election because don't want to interfere with the outcome of an election

based on mere charges. here they went forward and there's going to be criticism and there has been from joe arpaio's camp. the charges announced on a eve the election are politically motivated. >> ted: how does the claim go

legal wise? >> i don't think it goes far and can be resolved by looking at the genesis of this. let's talk about the individual who started this, the finder of fact. judge snow. paul knows better than i do, i

think he's worked with judge snow more than i have, he's not a political animal. he was nominated by a republican to the state court bench, he was nominated by another republican to the federal bench. belief me, judge snow, whom i greatly respect is not a flaming

liberal. i would say he's conservative, to moderately conservative. he's not a partisan i think he penalty bent over backwards to give sheriff arpaio the benefit of every doubt in this case and sheriff arpaio failed the test and judge snow did what he had

to do under the law. >> ted: great discussion, thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having us. get the inside scoop open what is happening at arizona pbs. become an insider. you'll receive weekly updates on the most anticipated programs

and events. get the insider delivered to your email inbox. visit azpbs.org to sign up today. >> ted: arizona superior court judges are not elected in the state's most populous counties but voters can choose whether or

not to retain those judges on bench of the commission on judicial performance review is a service that helps voters judge the judges. for more, we welcome mike hellon, the chair of the commission and arizona state bar ceo john phelps, judicial

performance review. >> it's a constitutional commission appointed by the chief justice, charged with the responsibility of evaluating the performance of appointed judges. superior and appellate courts. and recommending to the public whether in the commission's

opinion, the judge's upper attention should be retained on the not. >> ted: what are the criteria looked at? >> multiple. the major categories are legal knowledge, the correct application of legal presence

dense, and legal -- presence and principles and comportment, how do you treat people in the courtroom. are you courteous and listen to them. does the judge explain fully and clearly what is going on. and what the decision is and

why. and there are some administrative components, whether the -- whether the judge issues timely orders or not. >> ted: and the idea is for voters to go and find out information on these judges and decide whether or not it's a yes

or no. correct? >> that's correct. >> ted: to get down there, you have to quote/unquote, "finish the ballot." talk to us about the finish the ballot campaign. >> thanks, ted, for giving us

the opportunity to talk about this. we sent out to all 24,000 lawyers today, an email message encouraging them to finish the ballot but more importantly, encouraging them to talk to their family and friends about finishing the ballot and

provided this was how to do that and a fund -- a short video clip that can be sent to family and friends to help them figure all of this out. it's an your honor u unusual part of the ballot and -- it's an unusual part of the ballot and a lot of folks naturally ask

lawyers about judges and what to do and thought, why not put information in the hands of lawyers who are going to be asked those questions. >> ted: is there a link to the performance review as well? >> yes, there is. >> ted: how often are these

judges voted out? >> uh -- rarely. judge. >> ted: do you think it's too rarely, personally? >> i wouldn't make that kind of judgment. most of the judges we find are doing a very, very good job.

there are an few and there have been a few which in the commission's opinion simply should not be on bench. i've been on the commission for about 12 years and in that time, one judge has been voted out and two have retired rather than face retention.

>> ted: recourses are for judges -- before the voting happens let's say i'm a judge and look at the performance review and don't recognize that person, i don't think i'm that person. what kind of recourse does the judge have?

i defer to mike on that question, there's a process for judges to learn about the evaluations and also challenge >> there's another part of jpr, which we call the conventions of a judge, a lawyer and a public member will survey all the comments and all the reviews of

the judges and meet with the judge in a conference team to help the judge understand what his or her weaknesses are and what he or she can do to improve. >> ted: if a judge, let's say a judge is voted off the bench, can they return?

>> well, if they can get reappointed by the governor. >> ted: but to get reappointed, you've got to that on your rã‰sumã‰. >> you do indeed. not likely. >> ted: do we have any metrics how -- how many voters actually

get down to these decisions on the ballots? >> ted, i don't know what that number is. it's not very high. and so that's one of the reasons why we've worked with the jpr commission and our members to try and encourage folks to

finish the ballot. so i don't know what the number is but it haven't been a very high percentage. >> ted: if you're speaking to the average voter -- we've got the average voter watching now, what do you tell them what to look for and why you're here?

>> it's part of our civic duty, i think, to exercise that vote and because arizona has established the system to give voters the opportunity to provide input, it's -- it's an important part of completing that obligation and -- in our view, and so we've given that

information out to our members. but also the voters' pamphlet contains information that the jpr puts together and there's a website where voters can go on, you click on the county you're in and it lists the -- the judges that have been vetted that are up for retention

you can click on that name. it's simple it. takes extra effort and that's why we're putting in the extra effort. most folks once they're done with president, senators and representatives and city council, so on, you get down

toward the end of the ballot and they're worn out. >> ted: you're dealing with names you've never heard of. >> absolutely i. >> ted: the idea is to get them for familiar with the names? >> the legal system, the judicial system only works if

you have well qualified well meaning people objectively reviewing the evidence before them and -- in court. and when you have good people, we have to keep them. when we don't have good people, we have to replace them. and it's up to the public to do

its job after we have done our jobs. >> ted: ok, judicial performance review can be found on the web. >> on the website. >> ted: and that's -- >> i knew you were going to ask me that. [laughter]

>> ted: how about azcourts.gov -- jpr. we've got it on the screen. and the ballot campaign? >> easybar.org, it's prominently placed and you can click on think. good to have you here. thank you.

>> ted: tonight's edition of arizona giving and leading looks at a tempe organization helping those in need of the tempe community action agency is a social service provider that takes a comprehensive approach to alleviating hunger, poverty and homelessness in tempe and

surrounding communities. tcaa's executive director is deborah arteaga. >> ever. >> you mentioned our mission statement. we work to alleviate hunger, poverty and homelessness. we don't just limit services to

tempe residents, we serve individuals and families throughout the east valley. about 43,000 seniors, adults and children served by our programs every year. >> ted: the idea of a comprehensive approach to hunger and poverty, what does that

mean. >> we work to address financial and housing crisis that's individuals and families may be experience, our programs are designed to help prevent those crises in the future. >> ted: when we talk about emergency services what is going

on? >> probably our largest and most familiar is the food pantry, it provides about 40,000 food boxes to the community on a annual basis, close to 30-pounds and the equivalent of food, provided to the community, it's about 1.2 million meals per year

that's being put into the community through the food pantry, what is unique, we offer evening hours so that individuals working and struggling to provide for their family can access services in the evening and we operate two community gardens and take fresh

fruit and produce to boost the nutritional content. >> ted: i like the idea of community gardens, organic fruits and vegetable out of the ground in tempe. >> that's right. >> ted: utilities and housing as well?

>> right, individuals or families struggling with making there are utility bill payment or maybe facing a disconnect or eviction and experiences financial crises can come to us for help and we find by providing small sums of financial assistance when

families are in need, we can help to prevent homelessness in the future for them. >> ted: the interfaith lodging -- >> it's a help. it's been in existence for 10 years and a unique model. we work under partnerships with

10 different faith communities, and they provide overnight lodging and safe and secure place to sleep and during the day, our case management comes into play to address barriers to finding a job or permanent housing. >> ted: now, places of worship

are basically the spot for folks to go to to get help? >> they come to tcaa for assistance and then the overnight lodging sites are the faith community locations. every night, there's overnight lodging, serving 35 to 40 per night and it's a great and cost

effective model for addressing homeless. >> you mentioned senior service, three centers in scottsdale. the north tempe and two others. they're great resource to prevent isolation and loneliness that can affect the health and well-being of seniors and they

can benefit from meals and home-delivered meals for those who are home-bound. >> ted: and we go to pre and post-natal care. that's right. it has outreach workers that work with low-income families that are expecting and with

pre and postnatal care, we help to prevent low weight babies. >> ted: what's the biggest challenge? probably the challenge and the opportunity, the constant demand, the need in the community will 43,000 individuals per year, we see it

go up more and more every year, we can't do this without community partnerships and the volunteers so it takes a community to help with the difficult issues. >> ted: we have your website up. >> tempeaction.org. >> ted: not affiliated with the

city but a nonprofit that works independently. >> ted: congratulations for great work. thanks for joining us. >>> thursday on "arizona horizon," we'll hear from the author of a new book on the sometimes fine line between

trees and patriotism. that's on the next "arizona that's it nor now. thank you so much for joining us. you have a great evening!