Tammi Smith -The Charges

New Posts

saba said:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022012/m5090422.pdf

2/1/2012 TRIAL CONTINUANCE PAST ORIGINAL LAST DAY

Having considered the Motion to Continue by counsel for the State, and the Response filed by the Defense, the Court finds,

... The nonmoving party or parties: Opposed the motion.

...The Court finds that delay is indispensable to the interests of justice and that the following extraordinary circumstance(s) exist warranting the continuance: Witness not available...

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Continue, vacating the current trial date and resetting the trial to April 2, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in this division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Final Trial Management Conference on
February 13, 2012 and resetting same for March 27, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in this division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED excluding all time from February 21, 2012 through April 2, 2012 (41 days). NEW LAST DAY: May 10, 2012.
Click to expand...




BBM

I wonder if TPS is planning on calling EJ as her witness. EJ wouldn't be able to testify in TPS' trial (if TPS is thinking she will testify for her) until after EJ's trial is over, so that she doesn't plead the 5th. Once EJ's trial is over, she could pretty much say anything she wants - unless it's something that could cause new charges against her.
 
artsy1 said:
I wonder if TPS is planning on calling EJ as her witness. EJ wouldn't be able to testify in TPS' trial (if TPS is thinking she will testify for her) until after EJ's trial is over, so that she doesn't plead the 5th. Once EJ's trial is over, she could pretty much say anything she wants - unless it's something that could cause new charges against her.
Click to expand...

I read the order to say that it was the prosecutors who needed the continuance. Even so, why would Tammi want to call EJ as a witness? Elizabeth has already said that TPS set up the SA trip (per grandpa) and that friends of JS took Gabriel out of the park (LE reports). Why would TPS want the jury to hear that?

moo
 
saba said:
I read the order to say that it was the prosecutors who needed the continuance. Even so, why would Tammi want to call EJ as a witness? Elizabeth has already said that TPS set up the SA trip (per grandpa) and that friends of JS took Gabriel out of the park (LE reports). Why would TPS want the jury to hear that?

moo
Click to expand...

IMHO, I was thinking that if TPS will try to show that EJ killed Gabe, and that TPS didn't take him, she might think that getting EJ on the stand to try to blame it all on TPS would backfire - that she was blaming everyone else for what she did, not unlike that infamous Florida case that recently wrapped up....

Just my opinion... :pullhair:
 
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032012/m5134585.pdf

3/2/2012 MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received the State’s Expedited Motion Requesting Defense Interview.

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion and that witness Judicial Assistant, John Johnson, submit to a Defense interview at a time set by Mr. Johnson and the parties prior to the Trial date of April 2, 2012...


***John Johnson was the Judicial Assistant to Judge Michael McVey (the custody case) in early 2010. He is mentioned in the released police report #2 in connection with Tammi's alleged phone call(s) to Judge McVey regarding custody of Gabe.
 
saba said:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (CR2010-101760 or Tammi Smith)


3/5/2012 Notice - Party (002)

NOTE: DEFENDANTS RULE 609


The only Rule 609 I could find relates to evidence of a prior conviction used to impeach a witness. http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/e609.htm
Click to expand...

momtective said:
So...what exactly does that mean Saba? Please and thank you!
Click to expand...

I assume it's a Rule 609(b) Notice:

(b) Time limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a
period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of
the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction,
whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of
justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts
and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However,
evidence of a conviction more than ten years old as calculated herein, is not
admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance
written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a
fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

So it sounds like it is a notice from the Defendant (Tammi Smith I think is "party 002"?) that she intends to impeach some witness based on a criminal conviction that is more than 10 years old, but is so important that the court should allow it into evidence anyway.
 
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032012/m5136780.pdf

3/5/2012 STATUS CONFERENCE


...IT IS ORDERED affirming the Trial date of April 2, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in this division.

...In Court voir dire and jury instructions will begin on April 4, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. in this division.

...Opening statements will begin on April 5, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. in this division.


...The Court has before it Defendant's Motion to Strike State's Allegation of Multiple
Offenses Committed on Multiple Occasions pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703, and the State's response...

...The most appropriate time to resolve whether the State has proven sufficient facts to show whether the crimes were committed on the same occasion or not, is after the facts are presented and after the jury determines whether Defendant is guilty.

...Therefore, IT IS ORDERED deferring ruling on the motion.

***
More of the legal arguments on the Motion to Strike at link.
 
AZlawyer said:
I assume it's a Rule 609(b) Notice:

(b) Time limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a
period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of
the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction,
whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of
justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts
and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However,
evidence of a conviction more than ten years old as calculated herein, is not
admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance
written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a
fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

So it sounds like it is a notice from the Defendant (Tammi Smith I think is "party 002"?) that she intends to impeach some witness based on a criminal conviction that is more than 10 years old, but is so important that the court should allow it into evidence anyway.
Click to expand...

I understand the legal issue here and am not making light of it,

BUT

Tammi Smith impeaching the word of ANYONE who has criminal convictions is just downright hilarious!

The hypocrisy and double standard is........well......... EXPECTED in this case, hah!
 
OneLove said:
I understand the legal issue here and am not making light of it,

BUT

Tammi Smith impeaching the word of ANYONE who has criminal convictions is just downright hilarious!

The hypocrisy and double standard is........well......... EXPECTED in this case, hah![/QUOTE]

bbm

I think the fact that Tammi has been charged with forgery in the past (as Tammi Facio ) although reduced to misdemeanors via plea deal, will play a part in the State's case.

http://records.stbclerk.com/LandRecords/protected/SrchQuickName.aspx

Fudging the paperwork is not new either. While she was Tammi Facio, she also sued an employer for workman's comp(5 months for a dentist). She lost, appealed, and lost again.

FACIO v. GLAVIANO 658 So.2d 33 (1995)
Tammi FACIO v. Dr. Gary GLAVIANO.
No. 95-CA-35.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.


From the case:

In his reasons for judgment, the administrative law judge made reference to the discrepancies created by Ms. Facio as to when the complaints of pain in her hands actually began... Finally, the judge also made reference to Ms. Facio being untruthful on her job application regarding her experience.
bbm

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1995691658So2d33_1678.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

moo
Click to expand...
 
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032012/m5154801.pdf

3/14/2012 MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and considered “In Session Networks” Request for Photographic Coverage of Public Judicial Proceedings.

IT IS ORDERED granting the request for photographic coverage only in the courtroom in which this proceeding is being held. All persons with cameras shall comply with all provisions of Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, whether or not Court is in session. There shall be no use of flashbulbs, strobe lights or other artificial lights anywhere in the courthouse.
There shall be no use of cameras in the hallway, stairwell, elevator, cafeteria, or other public or private area of the courthouse.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the victims shall not be photographed. The Defendant may be photographed.
 
saba said:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032012/m5154801.pdf

3/14/2012 MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and considered “In Session Networks” Request for Photographic Coverage of Public Judicial Proceedings.

IT IS ORDERED granting the request for photographic coverage only in the courtroom in which this proceeding is being held. All persons with cameras shall comply with all provisions of Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, whether or not Court is in session. There shall be no use of flashbulbs, strobe lights or other artificial lights anywhere in the courthouse.
There shall be no use of cameras in the hallway, stairwell, elevator, cafeteria, or other public or private area of the courthouse.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the victims shall not be photographed. The Defendant may be photographed.
Click to expand...

Oh I was SOOOOOOOO hoping for this. TY TY TY
 
saba said:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032012/m5154801.pdf

3/14/2012 MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and considered “In Session Networks” Request for Photographic Coverage of Public Judicial Proceedings.

IT IS ORDERED granting the request for photographic coverage only in the courtroom in which this proceeding is being held. All persons with cameras shall comply with all provisions of Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, whether or not Court is in session. There shall be no use of flashbulbs, strobe lights or other artificial lights anywhere in the courthouse.
There shall be no use of cameras in the hallway, stairwell, elevator, cafeteria, or other public or private area of the courthouse.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the victims shall not be photographed. The Defendant may be photographed.
Click to expand...

:yesss: :great: :yesss: :great:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 58 more.
Total: 3,602 (members: 59, guests: 3,543)

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
3,543
Total visitors
3,602
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,622
Messages
17,972,062
Members
228,845
Latest member
butiwantedthatname
Back
Top