Charges dismissed against the Arpaio 5.

Been battling dental oppression lately which derailed me early into Garyn and Claire's trial today, so I missed the grand finale, personally, and haven't seen much of a write up yet from others. As court was getting underway this AM - the prosecution having rested yesterday on the conflicting testimony of several cops - the defense was busy working on photographs and videos they had to submit into evidence. (If you ever need that for your own trial, bring a back-up machine - they don't have prompt service if their own projector or other equipment fails). The judge heard "Rule 20" motions from both defense attorneys. Rule 20 states the following:

Rule 20. Judgment of Acquittal

a. Before Verdict. On motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in an indictment, information or complaint after the evidence on either side is closed, if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. In an aggravation hearing, after the evidence on either side is closed, on a motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment that an aggravating circumstance was not proven if there is no substantial evidence to warrant the allegation. The court's decision on a defendant's motion shall not be reserved, but shall be made with all possible speed.

b. After Verdict. A motion for judgment of acquittal made before verdict may be renewed by a defendant within 10 days after the verdict was returned.

The defense put up their first witness, a photographer who was present at the rally on January 16, 2010. They adjourned for lunch to research a few things, then reconvened and the judge dismissed charges due to lack of evidence that the state could obtain a conviction on any count if they proceeded. In other words, we ended up with a fair and honest judge, this time, and the cops who could have so easily compared their stories and lied to make for a better case, didn't. Maybe they were all satisfied with the jail time they nailed Grace with in her plea bargain.

I had to leave before lunch, but it's my understanding that the charges are all dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the state can't turn around and charge Claire or Garyn again. YAY!!! Way to hang in there, you two.

I learned a lot from the cops about riot control procedures during this trial, and about their own vulnerabilities when it comes to making arrests that can actually be prosecuted. The cops couldn't even identify each other in the march, much less individual protestors. They were disoriented and confused when the pepper spray hit, even the ones in gas maks. Their testimony was conflicting, except that all indicated pepper spray was deployed, it was a chaotic atmosphere, it was hard to hear and see, and no one identified themselves as police to Garyn or Claire until after they were in custody.

Garyn was arrested on the word and gesture of a cop whose glimpse of a similarly-dressed bottle-thrower was immediately obscured by pepper spray; an officer who couldn't even identify him as the thrower in the aftermath. He was handed off to several other officers for detention, arrest, and booking, such that it sounds as if the booking officer never even heard the integrity of the direct testimony of the witness. That was how the cops were organized out there to function, too - the front line would hand suspects out to the arrest team with a brief synopsis of what happened, then fall back in line, not follow through with the booking themselves - not really even know who was doing it, apparently.

The myth that made Claire an accomplice to Garyn's non-act of resisting arrest - supposedly chaining herself by the neck to his body in an attempt to obstruct police - was repeated by every cop that testified about her yesterday, but no one had any evidence of such a chain or leash, no did any of them see Claire wearing anything resembling a collar. The only possible explanation for this phenomena seems to be that Claire's purse strap got caught on Garyn somehow and when the police tried to take him town, they dragged her down on top of him, kicking and screaming with no idea of what was happening. It's a wonder no one got seriously hurt.

It was also clear from police testimony that they were expecting "trouble" from the anarchists by the time the marchers reached the site where the pepper spray was deployed - it sounds like they were trying to provoke it along the route. I saw photos and heard testimony myself that cops were punching people in the black bloc crowd before any bottles were thrown.

That all said, I think Stephen Lemons and the Phoenix New Times owe the Arpaio 5 a big apology for convicting them before trial last year, and not showing up to see how the real thing turned out.

Trial of the Arpaio 5: This is what an anarchist looks like.

Hey Phoenix PD:
















This is what an anarchist looks like.

So is this...

------------From the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition list-serve--------

The trial will continue Wednesday, Feb. 2nd at 10:30 AM on the sixth floor (Rm. 612) of the East Court Bldg located at 101 W. Jefferson. It will open with the defense motioning for a Rule 20, meaning that the state is left with the burden of providing evidence that could lead to Garyn and Claire's convictions. If they can't, then the cases get dismissed, to my understanding. If they don't, trial will continue with witnesses for the defense. Today, trial kicked off with the state's witnesses, four cops, who pretty much punched holes through the state's case and the police reports with the assistance of the defense attorneys, the judge and even the prosecutor, ironically! Unfortunately, the police did ID the defendants, so their cases weren't dismissed today.

http://arpaiofive.blogspot.com/2011/02/garyn-and-claires-trial-reconvenes.html

------------------------------------------

Also, Brian Wilkins was at the trial from the get-go today (I stumbled in with no pen half an hour late), so follow his Operation Nation blog posts for the details on the trial. Really, go read it; you won't find a better account anywhere else. What a huge waste of our time and money the MCAO is responsible for here.

One for the good guys: Arpaio loses again.

YAY!!!!

The good guys won this one!!!!

(When are the people of this county going to finally just run that man out of office?)

Anti-Arpaio protesters awarded settlement from 2008 arrests

by Craig Harris and Yvonne Wingett - Jul. 9, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Seven political activists claiming their civil rights were violated after they were arrested and cited for protesting against Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration policies recently were awarded nearly $475,000 by Maricopa County.

The settlement, reached this week, was nine times more than what the county's self-insured trust had originally authorized in February, and significantly higher than what the county planned to offer just days before the settlement, according to memos obtained by The Arizona Republic.

The settlements skyrocketed during negotiations because two lawyers working for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and a county risk manager persuaded the trust's board to pay up to $100,000 per plaintiff, records show. The money will come from the county's general fund, whose reduction this year caused layoffs and budget cuts.

Cari Gerchick, a county spokeswoman, said the earlier authorization "was an unreasonable amount" for the plaintiffs, and it would not have settled the case. She said the county's goal was to "minimize taxpayer exposure," and settling the case was far less expensive than going to trial.

But Chief Deputy David Hendershott of the Sheriff's Office called the settlement a "fraud on the taxpayers." He said the county should have settled for far less or forced the activists to go to court. Hendershott accused the county of settling to keep supervisors from being questioned in depositions.

The Sheriff's Office, he said, would have been allowed to participate in the depositions and would have questioned Supervisors Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox about criminal investigations the Sheriff's Office had conducted against them. Investigations into questionable financial dealings by Stapley and Wilcox resulted in indictments, but all charges have been dropped.

Gerchick called Hendershott's allegation "ridiculous" and said the settlement had nothing to do with the ongoing battle between the Sheriff's Office and the supervisors. The settlement stems from the arrests and citation of protesters on Dec. 15, 2008, on the 10th floor of Maricopa County's administration building and two days later at a Board of Supervisors meeting. Some protesters wore animal masks and pig snouts.

All were later acquitted. They sued the county for wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and civil-rights violations. The activists have been vocal critics of Arpaio and his immigration policies.

The settlements, reached Tuesday evening, will pay:

• Monica Sandschafer and Kristy Theilen each $99,999.

• Jason Odhner and Joel Nelson each $75,000.

• Guillermina Bethancourt and Ayensa Millan each $50,000.

• Raquel Teran $24,700.

County Manager David Smith said the settlement was a business decision. He estimated that going to trial on the cases could cost "at least $1 million in the first six months, just to defend them."

"You'd end up going round and round, grinding up all kinds of resources and spending two to three times the amount," Smith said. "Once again, the Sheriff's Office is creating these liabilities against the county. If it's 'fraud,' it's a fraud committed by virtue of bad acts."

The county expects to make the payouts within the next few weeks.

Records obtained by The Republic show the county intended to pay much less.

Maria Brandon is an attorney who works in the county's office of special-litigation services. She was appointed to represent the Sheriff's Office.

In memos sent to the Sheriff's Office days before the July 6 mediation hearing, Brandon stated that the county intended to start discussions with an offer of $2,000 per person and had no intention of giving away a lot of money. She indicated she received approval from the county trust in February to pay only up to $7,500 per plaintiff.

The county increased the payouts because, according to one of Brandon's memos, attorneys Brad Keogh and Wade Swanson, who report to the Board of Supervisors, and Assistant Risk Manager Rocky Armfield later went to the trust without her knowledge and received authority to pay up to $100,000 per plaintiff.

"I don't know why they did what they did, and I'm sure they have their reasons," Brandon said in an interview.

Swanson and Keogh declined to answer questions. Armfield could not be reached regarding Brandon's claim.

In a July 2 memo, Brandon stated that she and Armfield argued about the protesters, and he said it was OK to protest at the county's headquarters.

"He says the animal masks and pig snouts are for 'fun.' I said, 'Will they like it the next time if it is skinheads and neo Nazis?' " Brandon wrote.

Randy Parraz is another activist who filed a claim and is asking for $500,000. He withdrew from mediation and said negotiations are ongoing.

"In the event it doesn't get resolved, we have a lawsuit that's ready to be filed," Parraz said. "We're still engaged; we're still talking."

The Truth About AndrewThomas

This is an interesting website link that was forwarded to me this week by a friend in the Movement...check it out. For those of you who don't know, Andy Thomas is the vindictive former Maricopa County Attorney who is now running for the AZ Attorney General's office. He maliciously prosecutes his political enemies. That's largely what this website is about:

http://theandythomastruth.com/