Elizabeth Johnson's Court Hearings & Charges

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

It sounds to me like this little girl (EJ) <modsnip>.......has the court, LE and everyone playing HER game.......its disgraceful......
 
saba said:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Elizabeth Johnson or CR2010-101760)


1/12/2011- REQ- Party (001)
State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery


1/6/2011- SUA Subpoena and Affidavit of Service-Party (001)
Duces Tecum/ Served 12/30/2010
(there were two of these)
Click to expand...

Well the first I know is the state requesting discovery from the defense..they want what the defense has....documents etc..they may be asking the defense to answer questions and produce the evidence with it.

The Duces Tecum is a subpoena for production of evidence.

Now OT we are embroiled in a legal mess with my hubby's ex and we rec'd papers for production of discovery and basically they wanted check stubs, any emails, journals etc we had in our possession, that kind of stuff. It was pages and pages of questions that we either answered or had to produce paperwork for (check stubs etc)..we did the same to her..requested discovery from her. HTH..but I am in no way an atty so yes AZ lawyer..take it away!!!
 
saba said:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Elizabeth Johnson or CR2010-101760)


1/12/2011- REQ- Party (001)
State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery


1/6/2011- SUA Subpoena and Affidavit of Service-Party (001)
Duces Tecum/ Served 12/30/2010
(there were two of these)
Click to expand...

YellowSubmarine said:
Help me out here, what do those mean, Saba???
Click to expand...

jessicat said:
Well the first I know is the state requesting discovery from the defense..they want what the defense has....documents etc..they may be asking the defense to answer questions and produce the evidence with it.

The Duces Tecum is a subpoena for production of evidence.

Now OT we are embroiled in a legal mess with my hubby's ex and we rec'd papers for production of discovery and basically they wanted check stubs, any emails, journals etc we had in our possession, that kind of stuff. It was pages and pages of questions that we either answered or had to produce paperwork for (check stubs etc)..we did the same to her..requested discovery from her. HTH..but I am in no way an atty so yes AZ lawyer..take it away!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry I haven't stopped by here in a few days.

The Subpoenas Duces Tecum are indeed subpoenas to third parties for production of documents. We don't know who the third parties are or what they were requested to produce.

The "State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery" means that the defense requested that the state disclose something under Rule 15.1, and the state now wants to know the basis for the defense's request.
 
AZlawyer said:
Sorry I haven't stopped by here in a few days.

The Subpoenas Duces Tecum are indeed subpoenas to third parties for production of documents. We don't know who the third parties are or what they were requested to produce.

The "State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery" means that the defense requested that the state disclose something under Rule 15.1, and the state now wants to know the basis for the defense's request.
Click to expand...

Thank you as usual AZlawyer!

Could that third party be Det. Salame and those tapes?
 
jessicat said:
Thank you as usual AZlawyer!

Could that third party be Det. Salame and those tapes?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. First of all, this looks like it's a subpoena from the State, which probably could get Det. Salame to turn over the tapes without a subpoena. Second, the procedure to get things from out of state would look different on the docket.
 
Haven't found any updates yet, but, yes ej & ts were due in court this AM - an hour ago from now.
 
So, I'm assuming this means the hearing was postponed again?

Or, did she have her hearing today and this is a different one?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Court date: 3/1/2011 @ 8:30 Case #: CR2010-101760
Case event: Status Conference
Camera ruling: Pool Camera approved
Judge: Paul McMurdie
Prosecutor: Belle Whitney
Defendant: Elizabeth Joanne Johnson (001)
Defense attorney: Vanessa Smith/Nicholas Alcock

Case notes: Charged with child abuse, kidnapping, attempted custodial interference and custodial interference in the case of her missing 8-month-old son Gabriel. Johnson and the baby's father, Logan Scott McQueary were involved in a family court case (FC2009-007470). She also has another criminal case for Custodial Interference (CR2009-008392).


ETA: Just checked the court calender again -- an hour ago they were still on for today and now it doesn't show them . . . .
 
Seems like the media has totally forgotten about Gabriel. :banghead:
 
PHOENIX -- Could a mistake by prosecutors set baby Gabriel's mother free? The 8-month-old boy has been missing for more than a year, and his mother, Elizabeth Johnson, sits in jail charged in his kidnapping. But her attorney is banking on botched prosecution to set Johnson loose

Raynak thinks this interview alone is enough to set Johnson free, but Salame refuses to be deposed. And Raynak argued the prosecution is also responsible.
Click to expand...

You know, I understand defense atty's have a job to do, but it's just unfathomable that Raynak can sleep at night knowing ej could go free and the world will NEVER know the whereabouts or well-being of a little baby! He's taking a peson who has done Lord knows what with her baby and trying to get her free on a technicality. Seriously, how can he sleep at night?!? I swear, if he gets ej off on this, I'll write him every day telling him just want I think of his poor-excuse-for-a-man butt for allowing baby Gabe to be left who knows where subjected to who knows what. There has GOT to be some sort of law enacted that puts the rights of an innocent baby above those of the criminal! I'm so disgusted, I just want to vomit.


Although, I did enjoy reading this part:

But Raynak has enough trouble controlling his own client, Johnson, who wrote a letter to the judge without her attorney's knowledge. The judge announced it in court Monday, and then allowed Raynak and the prosecution team time to read it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 446 (members: 182, guests: 264)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
264
Total visitors
446
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,687
Messages
18,244,095
Members
234,423
Latest member
hikergirl112
Back
Top