Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-01 City Council Regular MinutesJUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 1,1990 The meeting of the Judicial Review Committee of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on March 1,1990,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER City Attorney David Alexander called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. Mr.Alexander explained that the purpose for this meeting is to review the judicial proceeding in accordance with the agreement between the two magistrates,that there is no set of questions formulated for this purpose although each party should be asked the same questions.Mr.Alexander also stated that there is a list of phone numbers,by conference call,in order to interview persons who have had dealing with the Magistrate Court,and these include defense attorneys,police personnel,and court personnel. Mr.Alexander introduced the members of the Committee;Mr.Collins and Mr.Smith,who are lay persons and employees of the school district;Judge DeArman,the Justice of the Peace of Florence;Mr.Zeworski,Prosecutor from Chandler;Mr.Hays,Prosecutor for the City of Mesa.Mr.Alexander further explained that the Judicial Review Committee is to come up with a recommendation to submit to the City Council. Judge DeArman stated that he,personally,would like to speak to Chief McDaniel. Mr.Alexander stated that the Committee "unit"should consider the conversations and when they take place,and with whom. Mr.Alexander stated that he had attempted to obtain an attorney for the Committee,but Mr.John Hestand was not available this evening.As having practiced before both judges it would not be appropriate for him to be present in the room while the meeting is taking place. Mr.Alexander also explained that the magistrates are under two-year contracts and are not under the Personnel Policies. Judge DeArman asked the City Attorney i f he has had any problems with this court. City Attorney David Alexander replied that he personally has not had any problems,but that he would not be the appropriate person to ask. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 1 ROLL CALL Committee members Present:Judge DeArman Mr.Hays Mr.Zeworski Mr.Marvin Smith Mr.Gary Collins Councilwoman Alger Councilwoman Barker Recording Secretary:City Clerk Kathleen Connelly Others Present:Magistrate Corwin Brundrett Assistant Magistrate Grace Villarreal ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN ) )Mr.Hays nominated Judge DeArman for the office of Chairman. Mr.Zeworski seconded the nomination. All were in favor of Judge DeArman for Chairman. Vice -Chairman. nomination. Mr.Zeworski nominated Mr.Hays for Judge DeArman seconded the All were in favor of Mr.Hays for Vice -Chairman. Judge DeArman asked City Magistrate Corwin Brundrett what his philosophy is towards people coming to see him and serving the public. Judge Brundrett replied that his philosophy is to treat people as human beings,that the facts need to be determined prior to making a decision. he has adjudicated. approximately 6,200 cases. Judge DeArman asked how many cases Judge Brundrett replied Judge DeArman reiterated that this court is the second highest in Pinal County in production,second only to the J.P.Court in Casa Grande,so a part-time person is necessary. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 2 Judge Brundrett agreed,that is has been necessary to call in the Assistant Judge,especially on arraignment days, to assist with the work load,and that at one time the cases were processed on a one-on-one basis as they came in.Judge Brundrett further stated that they have found,however,that time does not always allow for this due to the case load, and that some time in the near future a second judge may be needed,full time. Mr.Zeworski asked where he sees the court going within the next five years. Judge Brundrett answered that he sees a great future,the court is really progressing and moving into the 20th century in the respect with what the Supreme Court wishes the Magistrate Court to do,and that they are very proud of the fact that the computer programs are a big assistance. Mr.Hays asked i f the Court maintains any record of its proceedings that take place in Judge Brundretts chambers. trials are recorded on tape. proceedings are taped,such as arraignments. necessarily in every case. cases are recorded. does. Judge Brundrett replied that all Mr.Hays asked if any other Judge Brundrett replied that not Mr.Hays asked who determines which Judge Brundrett answered that he Mr.Hays asked i f there have been any problems with appeals from guilty pleas having to go on to Superior Court. traffic hearings are recorded. Judge Brundrett answered that all Mr.Hays asked that i f there is a guilty plea proceeding without a trial,is that recorded. Judge Brundrett replied that i f there is a guilty plea,it would go to trial normally. Mr.Hays asked if Judge Brundrett has a policy of his own when a defendant appears without a defense attorney, PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 3 does he treat these cases any differently than a trial where there was a defense attorney in terms of how strictly the rules are adherred to. Judge Brundrett stated that he tries his best to keep the order,follow the rules and regulations,and look at each case as i t progresses,with the evidence as presented by the officer involved in a case by case manner. Mr.Collins asked i f the Committee were to ask officers in the Police Department about Judge Brundrett's track record,what would they likely hear. Judge Brundrett replied that some officers would say that he is fair,although some would think that he could be a little harsher as there are some officers who think that everyone should go to jail. Mr.Zeworski asked where the "in -custodies"go. Judge Brundrett answered that they are sent to Pinal County jail in Florence,and have been since 1985. Mr.Hays asked i f in setting trials, are there multiple cases set for trial. Judge Brundrett replied that with attorneys there are sometimes three or four trials set at a time. Mr.Hays asked if jury trials are also set for multiple cases,and does Judge Brundrett have his own Rule 8 Speedy Trail Rules. Judge Brundrett replied that they are in the process of changing the jury trial procedures,and i t is necessary to set up a procedure. Judge DeArman stated that with Judge Brundrett's case load,it would be difficult for him to stay abreast of all of the different cases,i t should be up to the defense and prosecution to keep in touch,until a system can be found that might work. trials went to trial,say last year. Mr.Zeworski asked how many jury Judge Brundrett replied that there were about eight,and that there have been fewer and fewer,mainly because of drivers license suspense related to DUI's. Mr.Zeworski asked i f he had any idea how many were second offenses out of those eight. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 4 Judge Brundrett replied that he thought three were second offenses. Judge DeArman stated that the Magistrate Court probably has much the same problem that Pinal County has,with officers wanting to dictate time,but you can't fill the jail up with misdemeanors,so he walks everyone he can. Judge Brundrett stated that this is true,with overcrowding the jails. Mr.Smith asked what happens i f the jail is overcrowded. Judge Brundrett stated that this has only happened one time,and they ended up releasing the person. true,with overcrowding the jails. jail is overcrowded. Mr.Smith asked what was Judge Brundrett's pet peeve as a DPS officer. Judge Brundrett replied that often the overcrowding of the jails results in the unfortunate situation of letting people go that should be punished. Mr.Smith stated that Judge Brundrett heard 6200 cases last year,and asked what was the toughest case and why would he consider that the toughest in calling upon Judge Brundretts expertise as a judge. Judge Brundrett stated that i t is hard to remember a particular case with so many,that they are hard to keep up with. Mr.Zeworski asked i f in the case of domestic violence,how much is the fact that there is a concern with jail crowding and costs versus a repeat offender,going to affect the decision on whether or not to incarcerate this person or not. Judge Brundrett answered that the person would receive the same amount of jail time the second time as previously, with the severity being considered,probably would receive five to ten days to get the persons attention,with a possibility of 60 to 90 days,but would like to give them up to six months i f it were possible. Mr.Hays asked if Judge Brundrett has a policy or practice where he takes the matter under advisement. Judge Brundrett replied that during the time he has been hearing cases,only three maybe four times has a case been taken under advisement,because of certain factors. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 5 Judge DeArman stated that he would like to speak with Chief McDaniel and the Court Administrator. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly commented that the defense attorney may not be able to get here,but the Committee could speak with him on the phone. Judge Brundrett explained the court procedures and computer system,and how the increase in fines was incorporated into the system,and also pointed out that two of the clerks in the court have recently been replaced. Judge DeArman introduced Assistant Magistrate Grace Villarreal for interview. Mr.Zeworski asked Judge Villarreal for a brief history and background on her experience in the court system. Judge Villarreal stated that she has been Assistant Magistrate in Apache Junction for three,two year terms,and also established the Court in Superior in 1976,as City Magistrate,attended Arizona State University,Mesa Community College,with courses in Administration of Justice,along with the Judicial Conferences attended. Mr.Zeworski asked what the role of Assistant Magistrate is versus the role of Chief Magistrate and what her philosophy is. Judge Villarreal replied that they do of course,have different philosophies,and there have been times when she has entered a judgement and Judge Brundrett has asked for discussion,and as the presiding judge he may deal with the judgements how he feels right.Judge Villarreal added that her opinion is that the proper process should be followed, another judge should not overturn a judgement within the same level of jurisdiction. Judge DeArman asked if Judge Brundrett has ever overturned a decision made by her. Judge Villarreal stated that after discussion,Judge Brundrett will either let i t stand or do whatever he feels is correct,because he is presiding judge. Mr.Zeworski asked i f she has ever changed a ruling of her own because Judge Brundrett did not agree with the ruling. Judge Villarreal replied that if a judgement is entered,other than one made in error,that determination stands. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 6 Mr.Hays asked how often Judge Villarreal presides,and at what level. Judge Villarreal answered sometimes on Thursdays,at pretrials,bench trials,and at one jury trial. Judge DeArman asked if as a judge pro -tern,is i t Judge Villarreals philosophy to make her own decisions without conferring with someone else. Mr.Zeworski added to the question If Judge Villarreal has taken matters under advisement or conferred with Judge Brundrett,for example on legal issues where there are remaining questions after doing research. Judge DeArman commented that Judge Brundrett can certainly straighten things out on an automobile accident. out to the scene or location to investigate. has been done twice. when matters are taken under advisement. Judge Villarreal agreed. Mr.Hays asked i f she has ever gone Judge Villarreal replied that this Mr.Zeworski commented that this is Judge Villarreal agreed. Mr.Zeworski asked i f the parties are informed when this matter is to be investigated. Judge Villarreal answered that the parties are informed that the matter is being taken under advisement,as the scene needs to be visited,even i f i t is minor,with a failure to stop,for Instance. Mr.Hays asked i f the majority of time is spent with arraignments by addressing each defendant individually. Judge Villarreal explained that everything is explained in generalities,such as the process that i t to be followed during the arraignment. Mr.Hays asked i f there is a guilty plea at that time,how is that handled. Judge Villarreal stated that the parties are told that a guilty plea is different,and those people are told to have a seat as they will be dealt with after everyone else. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 7 Mr.Hays asked i f they are sentenced at that time. Judge Villarreal stated that they have the right to waive for sentencing. Mr.Hays asked what kind of background information is obtained at that time,other than the police report and prior criminal history. Judge Villarreal replied that no other information is obtained. Mr.Hays asked i f sentencing has ever been set off in order to find out more information. Judge Villarreal answered that this has been done at times,for example i f someone has been arrested and the officer is present,she will ask i f he has anything to add. Mr.Zeworski asked about setting a pretrial conference with the prosecutor involved,in order to obtain a history. Judge Villarreal explained that i f there is a feeling that the defendant is too eager to enter a plea,yes the sentencing is set off for further background,or perhaps i f the officer was too zealous in citing,it will be scheduled for pretrial conference. Judge DeArman asked i f the officers are asked to produce documents. Judge Villarreal further explained that the prosecutor does this at the time of pretrial. Judge DeArman commented that this doesn't always work,as the prosecutor doesn't always produce them. Mr.Hays asked if when there is pro per defendant appearing before her,would this case be treated any differently than one with an attorney,are rules of hearsay relaxed in terms of procedures. Judge Villarreal replied that prior to beginning,procedure is explained,and a court -appointed attorney is allowed, but because sometimes defendants don't know procedures,she tries to assist them in defense by pointing out the process,and that generally the police officer takes the prosecutor tact. Judge Villarreal also stated that i f i t is a serious case,a court appointed attorney is called in as advisor,even though the defendant did not want an attorney. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 8 Judge DeArman asked i f in the situation of a pro per cases,would Judge Villarreal rule with hearsay without a motion from the City Attorney. Judge Villarreal replied no,i t would be explained to the defendant that it was hearsay,after the motion from the prosecutor. The meeting was recessed at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:30 p.m. Mr.Smith asked that the record show that in his opinion,i t is unusual to have persons present in Executive Session who will be voting on this Committees recommendation. Mr.Smith MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mr.Hays seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous Committee recessed into Executive Session at 7:34 p.m. Committee reconvened into public session at 8:16 p.m. Judge DeArman reopened the meeting to the public at 8:16 p.m.,and asked i f there was any discussion. Mr.Smith stated that he would recommend both Magistrates,but there is some concern with disagreeing over rulings and one judge overturning anothers ruling,however,they will probably be able to work that out. Mr.Hays stated that he would recommend both Magistrates,and that his impression impression is that Judge Brundrett is very confident with a good grasp of the law and has struck a good balance combined with common sense,and further stated that he is impressed that everyone seems to agree that Judge Brundrett has gotten better over the years. Mr.Hays commented that Judge Villarreal's functions with the Court are limited so there is little to go on,but that there is concern with consulting on decisions and allowing the other judge to overrule her decisions,however,the answers she gave in making a decision and sticking with that,you can't ask for more than that. Mr.Zeworski agreed that he also would recommend both Magistrates be retained,adding that i t is good that the PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 9 personal aspect with the community is being taken into consideration,but that the expense of incarceration versus jail for those who deserve i t is a concern as well as the Assistant Magistrate allowing another judge to overrule a decision,although this is not grounds for not retaining Judge Villarreal. Judge DeArman agreed that both should be retained,and also expressed concern over the possibility of a decision made by one judge being over turned as Judge Villarreal is a very fair person. Mr.Collins stated that as a resident in the community he is please to hear the Police Department's endorsement of the Court. Judge DeArman asked i f the recommendation has to be written up for signature by the Committee. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly replied that i t can be done that way,or simply make a motion that both magistrates be retained,which seems to be the general consensus. Mr.Zeworski MOVED THAT BOTH THE MAGISTRATE AND THE ASSISTANT MAGISTRATE BE RETAINED FOR A TWO YEAR TERM. Mr.Hays seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Judge DeArman recommended that both the Magistrate and the Assistant Magistrate get a raise. There being no further business to discuss,Judge DeArman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Judge DeArman Chairman ATTEST: PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 10 Xea,,„d A Kathleen Connelly City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 1,1990 PAGE 11