A Maricopa County detention officer tried to explain Friday why he and a fellow sheriff’s office employee swiped a document from a defense attorney’s file in a bizarre scene that was caught on courtroom videotape.
Detention officer Adam Stoddard sputtered nervously through his testimony at a hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, where he was ordered to give reasons for taking the document. For every reason he gave, however, he retreated just as quickly, contradicting himself throughout the two-hour hearing.
The whole thing surrounded a scene that took place in a Maricopa County courtroom on Oct. 19, all caught on a courthouse security tape.
The tape shows Stoddard walking to the defense table during a sentencing that day. He leans over the table and begins reading from a document in the file of defense attorney Joanne Cuccia, who was speaking before the judge and had her back turned to the table.
Stoddard can then be seen motioning to a fellow sheriff’s employee, deputy Francisco Campillo, and the two men pull the document from the file. Campillo leaves the courtroom with the document, then comes back moments later and places the original back in the attorney’s file. Cuccia quickly figures out what is going on and brings up the issue with the judge.
On Friday, Judge Gary Donahoe, the highest-ranking criminal court judge in Maricopa County, held the hearing to determine whether Stoddard and Campillo had the authority to take the document from the file.
Under state law, an officer can seize evidence or make an arrest if he sees a crime taking place. Essentially, that’s what Stoddard said he saw — or at least what he thought he saw — at the sentencing of Antonio Lozano on that day.
The detention officer, however, had a hard time sticking to his story.
Heat City was the only media outlet in the courtroom to watch Stoddard get picked apart by veteran Phoenix defense attorney Craig Mehrens and Maricopa County legal defender Maria Schaffer. The two were representing, respectively, the Cuccia and her client, Lozano, whose rights may have been violated by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s employees.
At first, Stoddard testified that the document he yanked from the file — a handwritten letter — contained “keywords” that led him to believe Lozano was some sort of security risk. Later, however, the detention officer admitted the document had been reviewed by court or sheriff’s officials beforehand and was quite literally given a stamp of approval.
“I guess, yeah, he would be legally entitled to have whatever he had on him,” Stoddard said, adding that the letter had been “date stamped by a notoriety [sic notary] or the sheriff’s office.”
Stoddard also said he thought the document might have been somehow illegally passed between Lozano and his defense attorney. But later in the hearing, he admitted that there was really nothing unusual or illegal about a handwritten letter being passed between attorney and client.
The officer then invoked Lozano’s gang affiliation as a reason for thinking something sinister might be afoot.
“Lozano is a known associate of the Mexican Mafia,” he said. “The organization is known to operate in and out of the jails.”
He’s right. In fact, a member of the Mexican Mafia was recently accused of convincing two separate defense attorneys to smuggle drugs into the court and jails on his behalf.
But Stoddard later said this wasn’t an issue in the case because the paperwork that Lozano brought to court that day had been searched beforehand for drugs or other contraband. Sheriff’s officials had found nothing.
And so it went. Stoddard would say one thing to defend himself and then backtrack soon after. On several occasions, he told the court that pulling the document was “standard procedure.” Then later, he said it was the first time he had done it during his five years on the job.
By the end of it, it was unclear why Stoddard had really pulled the document.
One of the complication’s of the hearing was Donahoe’s decision that the handwritten letter falls under attorney-client privilege. Because of that, no one was allowed to talk about the contents of the letter, including the supposed “keywords” that possibly provoked the seizure.
This, Donahoe said, made it impossible for Stoddard or Campillo to mount a defense against a possible contempt of court charge. Donahoe said he would not even consider holding the sheriff’s employees in contempt for the seizure unless Lozano waived his attorney-client privilege.
“Unless you’re going to let these gentlemen fully defend against it, I’m not going to hold them in contempt,” Donahoe said.
Mehrens and Schaffer discussed it, but did not come to a decision. The waiver appeared unlikely.
Donahoe stopped the hearing after two hours, saying it would pick back up again next week. At that time, Stoddard will be questioned by Thomas Liddy, a deputy county attorney representing him and the sheriff’s office in court. Campillo, the sheriff’s deputy, is also expected to testify then.
Outside of a contempt charge, it’s unclear what kind of consequences Stoddard and Campillo are facing if the judge decides they were wrong in pulling the document.
Because of the uproar, Lozano’s sentencing for assaulting a fellow inmate was delayed. It’s possible Donahoe’s decision could affect that case.
Update (Nov. 7, 12:32a): This hearing continued on Nov. 7, 2009. To see what happened, click here.
Similar stories from Heat City
- Judge says he’s walking ‘a line’ with officer who took attorney’s file
- Judge orders officer to apologize or face jail for taking attorney’s file
- Showdown likely today between Arpaio, judge over officer who took file
- Arpaio to judge: Fat chance of apology
- He’s got guts! Officer Adam Stoddard is on the job today, not in jail
Heat City recommends
- Download Illegally, It's the Right Thing to Do
- Meet the candidates: Arizona’s gubernatorial election, part II
- James Carville Takes On Obama On Oil Spill: He's 'Risking Everything' With 'Go Along With BP Strategy'
Thanks for investigating this Nick. Keep up the good work. This smells really bad in my opinion. It will be another strike against Democracy in Maricopa County if Arpaio's Thugs get away with this.
Nice work, Nick. Is the deputy county atty you reference, Thomas Liddy, the radio talking head Tom Liddy?
We'll see on this one, Dennis. It's looking less likely that the judge will hand out any kind of punishment against these sheriff's officials unless the defendant waives his attorney-client rights. And it doesn't look like that will happen.
@rolomonkey Thank you. You know, I didn't even make the connection that the attorney was THAT Tom Liddy until I read your comment. Yes, it was him. He's a deputy county attorney in the civil division these days. Small world.
Thanks, Nick. Yes, indeed, it is a small world — especially out
their on the political edge.
i think police officers should be required to provide evidence to a crime taking place before an arrest such as them having to wear some kind of recording device at all times that cannot be turned off. There is to much “wiggle” room for law enforcement to lie and extort people and the occurrences seem to be on the rise as law enforcement seem to be taking it upon themselves to “create their own laws” and follow their own opinions of the law or their own opinions and beliefs instead of following the law which they take an oath to uphold. I also feel that police officers need to be treated to the same or better standards than ordinary citizens as “we the people” pay for them to be doing what they are doing and it seems that our tax payer dollars are being used to terrorize citizens, and cause harm to citizens and support a private fraternity of hooligans who feel they are above the law. That is just my opinion though…. I know that some of this is not relevant to the situation described here but everytime i see a police officer break the law and then go unpunished or get a slap on the hand and then look at the small things that citizens do and how the police “make up” or blow things out of proportion it just makes me upset. But anyways thank you for making the public aware of this maybe someday 200 years from now something will actually be done about stuff like this (def. not in my life time)
What is this half-assed law you people practice down in Juarez?
What joke.
If this was a corporate case or the defendant had any money, Maricopa County would be making $20,000 a month payments to the defendant the rest of their natural life.
Funny how the defendant must waiver one set of rights in order to have other rights enforced.
Sound to me like Mr. Stoddard's actions should result in a miss trial and the charges against the defendant should be thrown out. PERIOD!
As noted above, “an officer can seize evidence or make an arrest if he sees a crime taking place.” In order to maintain security, the officer may be in the habit of keeping a close eye on surroundings, looking for suspicious behavior of others. Knowing that the defendant allegedly was a member of an organization that snuck contraband into court, the deputy may have felt the need to look at the papers on the table. Once he saw them, he realized they weren't relevant to any security issue. Any type of officer will routinely make these quick judgment calls, and in most cases, they don't involve significant controversy. For example, here, if the materials were not privileged, there would not have been much controversy.
Only in retrospect did it become clear to him that doing so was unnecessary, as the paperwork had already been inspected by another security officer upon the defendant's entry into the building. Sometimes decisions that can appear rational at the time, based on what a person knew or perceived then, can appear irrational in hindsight. This situation often occurs when individuals have the opportunity to spend large amounts of time scrutinizing what were quick decisions.
While the officer should not have read the papers, I think it is unfair to hold him in criminal contempt, or to wonder why his after-the-fact explanations don't seem to make much sense.
Ah…you all are overlooking the insidious danger of “paper cuts”.
Relevancy doesn't matter, and the privilege waiver sure as hell doesn't matter. You wrote this:
The a/c privilege is fundamental to a client's trust and confidence in his/her attorney, thus ensuring that a fair trial is observed and a proper defense given. Only the client can waive this right.
and you are fundamentally wrong. Every state recognizes the Crime-Fraud exception. If the document really detailed a crime that the defendant intended to commit, then there is no privilege. At that point, the state could argue that any counsel she was providing was in the furtherence of a crime (rather than defending) and therefore there was no waiver.
That's the problem the officer is in. If it really was a detail of a crime that was relevant — i.e., one about to be committed in the court — then there was no privilege. If it was about a crime that had already occurred, then it was absolutely privileged as something that he needed defense counsel for.
There is no way that a waiver could be relevant. If he is going to assert an affirmative defense, then he has to do it without the luxury of a waiver from the other side.
Then contents of the letter are irrelevant. The courtroom offficer should be held in contempt for even reading the letter in the first place.
Anthony Murawski
Attorney at Law
Seattle, WA 98126
Cop looked like a sneak thief to me.
Having heard his explanation(s), I also question his integrity.
Would you believe sworn testimony from that deputy?
I sure hope that law enforcement in Mariposa County is both smarter and more honest than that bozo.
JUDGE DONAHOE, you ARE A DISGRACE to what a real judge should be. You can bet he didn't convict Stoddard because cops like stoddard would have to go to Sheriff Arpiao's mini-Bergen-Belson forced labor camp, and fascists never rat out fascists.
See below
Joe Esq., YOU are beyond WRONG. Citing Wikipedia? What Law School did you go to? The Google School of Law? What a phenomenal cop-out for the judge Donahoe to rule that the defendant has to waive his entire attorney-client privilege in order to find the deputy in contempt. HORSECRAP to you, Joe Esq. and horsecrap to your so-called “honor” Judge Donahoe. Judge Donahoe has READ the documents – and determined they were attorney-client privilege, thus, the judge already knows the contents of the attorney/client privilege and can allow the cop's testimony in a closed hearing. THERE WAS NO JURY IN THIS MATTER, it is a CONTEMPT hearing, before the judge ONLY. The JUDGE is the only finder of fact here, as to whether contempt occurred in a court of law. Judges find people in contempt every day, and jail people, and those people are NOT entitled to a jury trial or any rights. Who can possibly be offended by Stoddard saying what he saw? EVERYBODY IN THE COURTROOM KNOWS WHAT HE SAW, he made a photocopy of the file, THE JUDGE READ IT. If the honorable jurist is so worried, the judge can take the cop's defensive testimony as to the four words the cop SAW in a closed hearing or go back into your chambers and let him testify in CAMERA and make a ruling. So the cop can easily defend himself, and the judge's point, and Joe Esq's so-called point, is completely FALSE. Besides, the “four words” are already all over the press, the cop has waived any right to be harmed by blabbing to the press. The cop isn't harmed in the least by the failure of the defendant to waive his attorney/client privilege, because that is ONLY relevant if it is being used to CONVICT the criminal defendant. If it is inadmissible as to the criminal defendant, then Stoddard can talk all day about what he saw and what he thought it meant, because it is COMPLETELY ADMISSIBLE as to Stoddard. What a bunch of hogwash to let Stoddard use illegally gained information, and the defendant's refusal to waive his attorney/client privilege, as a shield to his conviction for contempt. As I will point out below, this means the cop can ALWAYS violate the 4th amendment and illegally seize information, since it forces the defendant to give up his rights to his attorney/client privilege regardless.
Besides, by the cop testifying to what he claims he saw, “in plain view” (if in fact it were “in plain view” in no way violates the confidentiality of the attorney / client privilege, since the attorney didn't keep it confidential! The judge could make a limited RULING therefore, if he believes the cop actually saw something “in plain view”, and therefore state that the defendant waived his right to object to the cop stating the four words he saw “in plain view”. These kinds of rulings are made every day. There is no need for the defendant to waive his entire right of attorney/client confidentiality or his right to counsel to make this ruling.
To rule the way the judge ruled in this case means that a cop can violate the defendant's attorney/client privilege, and the VERY VIOLATION creates immunity for his misfeasance because the illegally seized information must be admitted against the defendant unless the defendant refuses to waive his attorney/client privilege. It's insane. It means that cops everywhere SHOULD always violate the attorney/client privilege, because if they do, they get the evidence that they could not have seen otherwise, and if they caught, and the defendant waives his attorney client privilege, THEY AGAIN GET THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE. Judge Donahoe creates a catch-22 that only harms the defendant. The worst thing that happens to the state, for violating the rights of the citizen? A minor fine for the cop. The worst thing that happens for the defendant? The illegally seized evidence (given in complete reliance on the attorney/client privilege) will now be used against him and the defendant gets jail time. The 4th amendment is DEAD to Judge Donahoe. SHAME ON JUDGE DONAHOE, you ARE A DISGRACE to what a real judge should be.
WHAT A CHICKEN-SHITE COP OUT. This bailiff should be CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SENTENCED TO ONE MONTH OF SWEAT TENT time in Sheriff Joe the Fascist's Forced Labor camp, and he should be JOINED by JUDGE DONAHOE, and JOE ESQ. whose contempt for the US and ARIZONA constitution is sickening.
“…the judge is doing the defendant a favor”! and “giving him the option.” What a twisted view, Joe Esq. The defendant HAS ONE OPTION ONLY – to let the cop get away with it or to surrender his ENTIRE attorney/client privilege. Yep, the defendant here is given the option, the option of having THE *UCK the defendant up the *ss, and protecting the bailiff.
If there really was a need, the bailiff could have gotten a warrant easily: THE JUDGE WAS NO MORE THAN 20 feet away from him, the Prosecutor should have been no more than 10 feet away! All he had to do was OPEN HIS MOUTH. All this shows is that these cops don't feel the slightest need for judicial supervision. The HUBRIS is stunning, just stunning. “Warrant? WE don't need no stinkin' warrant!”
Welcome to Arizona.
[...] outlets. Recently he has been quoted on NPR several times regarding his breaking report on the “Detention Officer Tries To Explain Why He Swiped Attorney’s File”. Nick and I met a few times to talk about the fate of the East Valley Tribune and how journalism [...]
[...] On Oct. 30, Judge Gary Donahoe determined the document was subject to the privilege, meaning its contents could not be revealed to the public unless the defendant waived his right to keep it private. Donahoe said at the time the document appeared to contain no coded messages or anything illegal. [...]
[...] ruling held Stoddard in contempt for the Oct. 19 incident in which he could be seen on a courtroom security video sneaking up behind attorney Joanne Cuccia [...]
Update: The judge in this case has ordered the detention officer to hold a news conference, apologizing for taking the file, or else face jail on a contempt charge. The story is here: http://www.heatcity.org/2009/11/judge-orders-of...
[...] whole uproar goes back to Oct. 19, when Stoddard was caught on a courtroom videotape taking a document from the file of public defender Joanne [...]
Detention Officer- shorthand for too G*d-d*mn*d DUMB to be a cop–
working for der Fuhrer Arpaio, who thinks the Constitution is just a piece of paper, I'm sure, an inconvenient obstacle.
[...] you can see from this report, Stoddard doesn’t seem to have one good reason as to why he grabbed the papers. He says he feared [...]
[...] you can see from this report, Stoddard doesn’t seem to have one good reason as to why he grabbed the papers. He says he feared [...]
[...] at the hearing last month to figure out whether Stoddard’s actions were legal, it was tough to tell what the young officer believed. He contradicted himself numerous times in testimony and was [...]
Does anyone even think that maybe this officer of the court was working for the mexican mafia? and his actions was a distraction of an even greater scheme. Now how stupid is our justice and police systems…D’OH!!!
Does anyone even think that maybe this officer of the court was working for the mexican mafia? and his actions was a distraction of an even greater scheme. Now how stupid is our justice and police systems…D'OH!!!
[...] case rose to national attention last year after he was caught on a courtroom security video taking a handwritten letter from the files of a defense attorney while her back was [...]