Charge & Hearing - EJ & TPS - Conspiracy to Commit Custodial Interference

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

BeanE said:
That's what I thought - that Tammi was delayed because of EJ. Let's see if AZlawyer can figure it out. :)
Click to expand...

AZlawyer has answered:

AZlawyer said:
I don't see any rulings or motions about that on the docket--did you guys find one? They are listed as co-defendants, so the trial should be together unless one of them files a motion and explains how her case will be unfairly tainted by the evidence being presented against the other defendant.
Click to expand...
 
Ok please help me out here...I'm a little slow this week;)..is there a hearing today? If I look at the court docket I don't see anything until the 16th and thats with both of them. Am I right?
 
Nevermind I think I just found the answer to my own question. I hope today brings us something positive.
 
Bump.

This thread is for the charge Elizabeth and Tammi face together, the conspiracy to commit custodial interference.

The Tammi charges thread is for her charge of forgery.

The Elizabeth charges thread is for her charges of child abuse and custodial interference.

Thanks -
BeanE
 
saba said:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Are both defendants having lawyer issues?

On 9/30 there is a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Counsel. (party 001) I took that to be TPS.

On 10/1 there is a Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel. (party002) Is this EJ? I don't think TPS qualifies for appointed counsel because she has $$.
Click to expand...



If I am reading the case history correctly, since the mental health issues were listed as being for "party (001)" then I think that has to be EJ, and TPS has to be "party (002)".

Having said that, I think that someone entered the info incorrectly into the case history about party (001) filing the motion for change of attorney, and that is why there is a notation to the side that it is for defendant (2).

I am assuming that once something is entered into the case history, it can't be deleted - only additions made to correct an entry.

Then the motion showing for "party (002)" was the correction for the entry. Which would mean that it is indeed TPS requesting the appointment of counsel.
 
saba said:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Are both defendants having lawyer issues?

On 9/30 there is a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Counsel. (party 001) I took that to be TPS.

On 10/1 there is a Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel. (party002) Is this EJ? I don't think TPS qualifies for appointed counsel because she has $$.
Click to expand...

BeanE asked me to take a look at this docket. This is the court in which I practice every day, so I'm pretty used to their docket system. :)

My interpretation is: On Sept. 27, Elizabeth's attorney filed a "Motion to Change Counsel." On September 30, he realized that wasn't exactly the right motion to file, and withdrew the motion. On October 1, he filed the correct motion: a "Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel."

I haven't been keeping up on this case, but I assume Nick Alcock is her privately retained (or pro bono) counsel? (I don't think he's on the court-appointed counsel list.) If so, it looks like he wants to get out and have her represented by court-appointed counsel.

There was a status conference on Sept. 27 (you all probably knew that already), and the minute entry for the status conference indicates that counsel met in chambers with the judge off the record prior to the status conference. So something might have been said at that time that triggered the attempt to withdraw.
 
artsy1 said:
If I am reading the case history correctly, since the mental health issues were listed as being for "party (001)" then I think that has to be EJ, and TPS has to be "party (002)".

Having said that, I think that someone entered the info incorrectly into the case history about party (001) filing the motion for change of attorney, and that is why there is a notation to the side that it is for defendant (2).

I am assuming that once something is entered into the case history, it can't be deleted - only additions made to correct an entry.

Then the motion showing for "party (002)" was the correction for the entry. Which would mean that it is indeed TPS requesting the appointment of counsel.
Click to expand...

Party 1 is the State of Arizona. Party 2 is Elizabeth. Party 3 is TPS. You can see these numbers at the top of the docket under "Party Name-Number." The clerk is supposed to fill in the column for "filing party" but hardly ever does. BUT if and when they DO fill it in, it's usually right. ;) The notations right next to the motion titles that say "Party (001)", "Party (002)," etc., on the other hand, are almost always filled in but often wrong. :waitasec:

ETA: Also, quite often the party numbers listed in the motion titles ("Party (001)," etc.) are different from the filing party numbers (1, 2, 3...). That seems to be the case here. Generally, it looks like 001 is Elizabeth and 002 is TPS. If you go to the high-profile case list http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/MediaRelationsAndCommunityOutreach/HighProfileList/Index.asp and search for their names, you can see the (001) and (002) numbers next to their names.

ETA2: So I suppose an alternative interpretation of the docket, if you assume the clerk did not mess up ANY of the entries, is that Elizabeth's counsel filed a Motion for Change of Counsel, then withdrew that motion, and then the next day TPS's counsel requested to withdraw from the case and have court-appointed counsel assigned to TPS. But could she qualify financially??
 
AZlawyer said:
BeanE asked me to take a look at this docket. This is the court in which I practice every day, so I'm pretty used to their docket system. :)

My interpretation is: On Sept. 27, Elizabeth's attorney filed a "Motion to Change Counsel." On September 30, he realized that wasn't exactly the right motion to file, and withdrew the motion. On October 1, he filed the correct motion: a "Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel."

I haven't been keeping up on this case, but I assume Nick Alcock is her privately retained (or pro bono) counsel? (I don't think he's on the court-appointed counsel list.) If so, it looks like he wants to get out and have her represented by court-appointed counsel.

There was a status conference on Sept. 27 (you all probably knew that already), and the minute entry for the status conference indicates that counsel met in chambers with the judge off the record prior to the status conference. So something might have been said at that time that triggered the attempt to withdraw.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much AZ. Wow.
 
The_Flashlight said:
The way I understood it, the motion to change counsel was from TPS.
Click to expand...


That was the way I had understood it, too, from the media report on that day. It was said that TPS had requested change of counsel (and that's why she didn't show up), but I hadn't heard anything about EJ having a request, too. That's why I assumed that the case history had an error. :waitasec:
 
AZlawyer said:
BeanE asked me to take a look at this docket. This is the court in which I practice every day, so I'm pretty used to their docket system. :)

My interpretation is: On Sept. 27, Elizabeth's attorney filed a "Motion to Change Counsel." On September 30, he realized that wasn't exactly the right motion to file, and withdrew the motion. On October 1, he filed the correct motion: a "Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel."

I haven't been keeping up on this case, but I assume Nick Alcock is her privately retained (or pro bono) counsel? (I don't think he's on the court-appointed counsel list.) If so, it looks like he wants to get out and have her represented by court-appointed counsel.

There was a status conference on Sept. 27 (you all probably knew that already), and the minute entry for the status conference indicates that counsel met in chambers with the judge off the record prior to the status conference. So something might have been said at that time that triggered the attempt to withdraw.
Click to expand...

hi AZ - so far, so good. Alcock's Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Counsel was granted on 10/01 and filed electronically on 10/5.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/ (type in EJ's name)
 
artsy1 said:
If I am reading the case history correctly, since the mental health issues were listed as being for "party (001)" then I think that has to be EJ, and TPS has to be "party (002)".

Having said that, I think that someone entered the info incorrectly into the case history about party (001) filing the motion for change of attorney, and that is why there is a notation to the side that it is for defendant (2).

I am assuming that once something is entered into the case history, it can't be deleted - only additions made to correct an entry.

Then the motion showing for "party (002)" was the correction for the entry. Which would mean that it is indeed TPS requesting the appointment of counsel.
Click to expand...

hey Art- you may still be right about TPS- no order yet but Michael Kimerer has been removed from the case heading and now where the lawyer for Tammi would be listed, it says "to be determined." The Motion to Withdraw and for Appointment of Counsel is the only one left. (I think) http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

eta: there is no prize if you are right
 
http://www.azcentral.com/community/...101006tempe-baby-gabriel-tammi-smith1006.html

New article that gives some insight.

Sniped
Elizabeth Johnson, Gabriel's mother, recently submitted a request to change her lawyers, Nicholas Alcock and Associates of Phoenix. She provided a list of reasons, including that she was unable to reach him personally but was referred to an associate. She also said he spoke to a member of her family without her permission.
In the handwritten letter from jail, Johnson asked to have her former public defenders re-appointed.

She then filed a motion to withdraw this request, and last Friday, McMurdie approved it."
 
Nothing yet? I have googled and don't see an update on the hearing. It's time for JUSTICE for Gabriel!!
 
Desperate acts of 2 in Baby Gabriel mystery
by Laurie Merrill -The Arizona Republic

The meeting in Indianapolis between the two Valley women with complementary passions would pave the way for one of the biggest unsolved Arizona crimes in recent history: the disappearance of Baby Gabriel on Dec. 27, 2009.

The case continues today in Maricopa County Superior Court, when a status conference is scheduled for Smith and Johnson.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...110501baby-gabriel-mystery.html#ixzz1LCbiMpbR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 139 more.
Total: 3,461 (members: 140, guests: 3,321)

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
3,321
Total visitors
3,461
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,406
Messages
18,171,692
Members
232,553
Latest member
De0911
Back
Top