Thread: County attorney targets illegal alien hugger judge

County attorney targets judge
New law barring bail for migrants ignored, Thomas charges
Michael Kiefer
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 3, 2007 12:00 AM

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas on Tuesday demanded that a senior Superior Court judge step down from cases involving his office. The unprecedented request would essentially force Judge Timothy Ryan to resign his position as assistant presiding criminal judge.

The motion, which is tied to two specific Proposition 100 cases, was filed by Thomas' private attorney, Dennis Wilenchik. It cited remarks Ryan has made to the media, in addition to court rulings and documents that Thomas believes show that Ryan is biased against enforcing Proposition 100, the citizens initiative passed last year that denies bond to illegal immigrants accused of committing serious crimes.

Ryan would not comment on the motion, nor would his superiors, Presiding Criminal Judge Ana Baca or Presiding Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell.

Nor would Thomas.

A spokesman for his office said there would be a hearing on the motion today. In fact, it is a hearing in one of the cases cited in the motion, which has been scheduled for some time.

Ramon Perez Ortiz is accused of human smuggling. His attorney, Robert McWhirter of the Maricopa County Office of the Legal Defender, intended to argue the constitutional issues of the state human-smuggling-law statute and was alarmed at the suggestion that the motion might take precedence.

"This is outrageous, to file this on the eve of oral arguments when my client has been waiting for 2½ months for his day in court," McWhirter said. "It makes me believe that the county attorney doesn't want to face the substantive issues in this case: that his interpretation of the alien smuggling statute is inherently illegal."

Furthermore, McWhirter said that many of the issues in Thomas' motion are irrelevant to his case.

For example, it quotes a legal note Ryan wrote related to the "Serial Shooter" case, in which he stated that portions of surveillance recordings he listened to contained nothing but noise and that he would only listen to the parts of the recordings that the state intended to present in court as evidence.

Thomas apparently thought the note was too flip.

The motion also recites Thomas' months-long insistence that the Superior Court in general was obstructing the enforcement of Proposition 100 by granting bond to illegal immigrants who were not entitled to it under the new law.

The state Supreme Court issued clarifications of the law, and the state Legislature wrote new statutes to help with its implementation.

In the motion, Thomas accuses Ryan, a former prosecutor, of releasing immigrants or setting minimum bond in several cases; of giving quotes to the media that were critical of the law and of being impolite to deputy county attorneys, including threatening to hold one prosecutor in contempt of court for not appearing in court.

As assistant presiding criminal judge, Ryan not only hears cases but also has administrative duties assisting the presiding criminal judge.

Whether the motion carries any legal weight remains to be seen.

"Judges recuse themselves from cases," said Cari Gerchick, an attorney and communications director for the Arizona Supreme Court.

"But I'm not familiar with a judge being asked to recuse himself from a whole category of cases."

In this case, Thomas is asking Ryan to recuse himself from all cases, and it is unclear who would rule on the motion.

Arizona State University law Professor Paul Bender said that if there were concrete proof a judge was biased, perhaps some action could be taken. But Bender said judges might recuse themselves from particular cases, but not all cases.

"It's a remarkable request," he said. "I never heard anything like it."

McWhirter said that there was no legal basis for the request.

"Neither the statutes nor the rules of criminal law allow for this notion, and that's why it's called 'voluntary,' " he said. "This is nothing more than an attack on judicial independence."

The unprecedented motion came on the same day that the Arizona Court of Appeals knocked down a constitutional challenge to Proposition 100.

Public defender Tracy Friddle claimed the law was vaguely worded in a way that could affect immigrants who are in the country legally.

The court disagreed, also ruling that the law did not deny due process but simply clarified an instance in which a defendant was a flight risk.

"Proposition 100 was intended to thwart criminals from fleeing justice and accountability in Arizona courtrooms," Thomas said in a prepared statement about the appellate court decision. "This reform is essential if we are to prevent criminal offenders from coming and going as they please across our southern border."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... s1003.html

Good for Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas....it's time someone does somethiing with the bleeding-heart, liberal judges!

This could be the beginning of something great!