Click to call 602-307-0808 24/7 Click Here for Free Consultation

Arizona Court Judges – Page 2

The following Opinion Ratings were given to each specific Judge based on individual interactions between the Judge and a Member Attorney (or Attorney’s) from The Law Offices of David Michael Cantor.

The criteria codes for rating each Judge, based on our Attorney’s Opinion of that Judge’s Legal / Procedural Rulings, are as follows:

  1. Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights
  2. Neutral
  3. Pro-Prosecution
  4. Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral
  5. Pro-Prosecution to Neutral
  6. Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights, but can be all over the spectrum
  7. Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum
  8. Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum
  9. No Opinion

 

The criteria codes for rating each Judge based on our Attorney’s opinion of that Judge’s past Sentencings (if given discretion) are as follows:

  1. Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation
  2. Neutral
  3. Harsh
  4. Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral
  5. Harsh to Neutral
  6. Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation, but can be all over the spectrum
  7. Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum
  8. Mainly Harsh, but can be all over the spectrum
  9. No Opinion

Click Here to Search by Court

Click Here to Search by Judge

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Crawford, Janice (Juvenile / Mesa)
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Cunanan, David (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that this Judge sometimes Micromanages his cases and inserts sentencing terms that were not requested by the Prosecution. In addition, we feel that he sometimes is temperamental when his Rulings are challenged by Attorneys. Some feel that he gives off an impression which can indicate to Defendant that he wants them to plea guilty. However, it appears that he will ensure that 2 Defendants receive the same plea agreement and treatment if they are similarly situated.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Ditsworth, John (Juvenile / Durango)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge is a former Prosecutor who appears to be a smart, fair and no-nonsense Judge. Our Attorneys universally enjoy appearing in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Donofrio III, Charles (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We have found this Judge to be responsive to extensive Sentencing Memorandums. He appears to read all information presented prior to making sentencing decisions. However, one of our Attorneys found him to be confused with presented with evidence regarding a Motion to Suppress as related to a DUI “medical purposes” Blood Draw. We feel that it would be helpful to have a skilled Defense Attorney specifically present and explain evidence to this Judge if you are dealing with a vehicular crime involving a blood, breath or urine issue.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Duncan, Sally (Juvenile / Durango)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We have found this Judge to be very intelligent and analytical. For the most part, she does not favor either side. However, she does appear to favor the Prosecution and has, in the past, sentenced harshly in cases that involve Defendants who intentionally injured another. We feel it is best to hire a skilled Defense Attorney who is well prepared when appearing in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Fenzel, Alfred (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge is a former Prosecutor who has been practicing for quite awhile, therefore, he has a good perspective on reality. He is not just looking to harshly sentence Defendants, as long as they’re making an effort to do better. We have found that he can sometimes be unpredictable on certain Rulings, therefore it would be wise to have a knowledgeable Defense Attorney who is well prepared when you appear in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Fink, Dean (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge does not appear to favor either side when making legal Rulings or at sentencing’s. However, he does want to see that a Defendant is making a genuine effort to do better when it comes times to sentencing. It would be wise to have an experienced Defense Attorney represent you throughout the proceedings in order to have Mitigation Evidence prepared at the very beginning of your case and throughout its pendency.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Flores, Lisa (Juvenile / Old Court House)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Foster, George (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge is normally right down the middle when it comes to most cases, he can be very Pro-Prosecution in regard to Sex Crime cases. We advise that you have a knowledgeable Sex Crimes Defense Attorney at your side in order to thoroughly detail all of your Defenses when in front of this Judge. This will also help in having a detailed Mitigation Package prepared should you proceed to sentencing in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: French, Colleen L. (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that this Judge is primarily favorable to the Prosecution. She can also be very harsh at sentencing. Universally, our experiences at Jury Trial have revealed that she appears to primarily Rule in the Prosecution’s favor when dealing with objections. It would be very wise to have an aggressive and well prepared Defense Attorney by your side should you appear in her court room.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Gialketsis, Cynthia (Mesa / Southeast Facility)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although most of our Attorneys find this Judge to have a very pleasant demeanor, she appears to lean in favor of the Prosecution. She was a former Prosecutor, and has been known to insert Community Service requirements in probation pleas, even though the Prosecutor didn’t ask for them. Her sentencings also seem to be on the harsh side and include more punishment than was requested by the Prosecutor. We advise that you have a knowledgeable and aggressive Defense Attorney with you should you appear in her court.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Gates, Pamela (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge currently hears all of the Sex Offender Motions to Terminate Probation. She will only terminate if the probation office concurs with the Defense recommendation. It is our opinion that you ask any Attorney you are interviewing with regards to a Motion to Terminate Sex Offender Probation, ask what their previous experiences have been with this particular Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Giaquinto, Laura (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Our experience with this Judge has universally been found to be positive. She has voiced her opinion that she has found many of the Prosecution’s policies to be somewhat inflexible and impracticable. She has a pleasant demeanor and is respectful to all parties in her Courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Gordon, Michael (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that this is one of the most legally thoughtful Judges on the bench. He was a former Federal Public Defender, and he will hold the Prosecution to their Constitutional burden of proof. He is not afraid to make unpopular Rulings and have them challenged in front of the Court of Appeals. It is our advice that you have a very well prepared Defense Attorney by your side in order to present him the best written and oral legal arguments possible. He will listen.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Granville, Warren (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge has been on the bench for a long time. He has great perspective on what warrants an aggravated sentence and what does not. He has universally been found by our office to be very helpful in Settlement Conferences. Although he often will mitigate a sentence, he frequently imposes lifetime probation on Sex Offense cases when he is given discretion. The better prepared your Defense Attorney, the better chances you have of obtaining a favorable outcome in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Harrison, Cari (Juvenile / Old Court House)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is best to have a skilled Arizona Defense Attorney who fully briefs all issues and presents them to this particular Judge. It appears that the more prepared Defense counsel is, the more that this Judge will listen. Do not expect her to independently research legal issues on your behalf, you need an Attorney who will present them for you.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Hegyi, Hugh (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Our experience with this Judge is that he appears to be fairly reasonable and allows continuances for purposes of discovery and settlement. This particular Judge will listen intently, and has often been known to side with the best prepared Attorney in the room. It is our advice that you have a highly skilled Defense Attorney when appearing in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Hoffman, Kristin (Juvenile/ Durango)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Ireland, Jackie(Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Kaiser, Brian (Mesa/ Southeast Facility)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that even though you may be thoroughly prepared with legal briefings when in front of this Judge, he can still be unpredictable in his Rulings. In our opinion, he most often sides with the Prosecution and has been known to be harsh during sentencing. When interviewing a Defense Attorney on your behalf, ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice of Change of Judge” regarding this particular court room, and what have their past experiences been in front of this Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Kemp, Michael (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Mainly Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge was a former Federal Prosecutor, we find him to be very well reasoned and neutral in his decisions. We found his Rulings to often be very accurate, as long as an Attorney has presented a very well researched legal brief. We have also found that he is not afraid to make unpopular Rulings. This particular Judge had the courage to dismiss a Capital Murder case, “with prejudice”, regarding the high profile case of Lisa Randall. The then Maricopa County Attorney held a press conference and agreed with the Judge’s Ruling, and did not appeal to a higher court. Again, it is best to have a very well prepared Defense Attorney when appearing in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Kiley, Daniel (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that this Judge is very reasonable in regard to Sex Crimes cases. He doesn’t appear to be looking to aggravate sentences, and he has been known to modify sentences if detailed mitigating information is provided. It is our advice to have a very well prepared and skilled Defense Attorney by your side if appearing in front of this Judge, as it can be very helpful.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Lafave, Julie (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Mahoney, Margaret (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Martin, Daniel (Juvenile/ Old Court House)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Mata, Julie (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We have found this Judge can sometimes be temperamental and gruff with Defense Attorneys. It appears she is also harsh on Defendants who have prior convictions. Some of us have found that she is reasonable on imposing her own Release Conditions, however she will not modify other Judge’s Release Conditions very often. It appears that he is somewhat cautious, and therefore defers to the Prosecution’s recommendations on many issues.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: McClennen, Crane (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge mainly handles the Lower Court Appeals that are filed from City Courts and Justice Courts. It has been our majority experience that he usually finds a way to Rule in the States favor, even if the Prosecutor did not brief that particular issue. However, during a Jury Trial we once had in front of him, he did thoroughly analyze the law and change one of his Rulings from the Prosecutor’s favor to our favor before the case went to deliberations.

 

This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2012 and 2013. We have provided a link that will take you to the Commission’s website. Click This Link – to read all details of the Complaint and the Commission’s Ruling.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: McCoy, Scott (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that this Judge is very good for conducting Settlement Conferences, especially with regard to Sex Crimes cases. He helps both sides come to an agreement, and then he will handle the sentencing should the case result in a change of plea. We have found that he then sentences very reasonably, and does not “bait and switch” in order to get a Defendant to plead (then hammer him at sentencing).

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: McGuire, J. Justin (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Our experiences has been that he has usually not been good for Sex Crimes cases for the Defense. He is also not favorable on Probation Violations towards a Defendant. In our opinion, we find it would be best when interviewing a Defense Attorney to ask him if he has ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what have his experiences been with this particular Judge. It is our opinion that you need a very skilled and aggressive Defense Attorney if you have been assigned to this particular court room.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Mclaughlin, Jane (4th Ave. Jail)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge currently handles Initial Appearances at the Jail Court. We have found that she is fair when it comes to imposing Release Conditions or when imposing a realistic bail amount.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Miller, Phemonia (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge can be slow sometimes when issuing Rulings, we have found her to be extremely reasonable and fair. She has a very pleasant demeanor and treats everybody in the court room with respect.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Mroz, Rosa (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Mainly Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We find this Judge to issue very fair and well reasoned legal opinions. She also has a pleasant disposition, and if she sentences harshly, it is usually because there is appropriately aggravation presented to her. We advise that you have a very knowledgeable and well prepared Defense Attorney when appearing in front of this Judge in order to obtain the best result.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Myers, Sam (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Mainly Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge has been around for a long time and we have found him to be fair and well reasoned with both sides. The better prepared your Defense Attorney, the better your outcome can be when in this particular court room.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Newcomb, Casey (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although we have had limited experience with this Judge, we have found him to be very reasonable when it comes to issuing Release Conditions at an Initial Appearance or Arraignment. He appears to be fair to both sides.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Nothwehr, Richard L. “Rick” (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge is a former Prosecutor, and very often Rules in favor of the Prosecution. However, he is aware of this fact and has been known to give Defense Attorneys fair warning on specific cases in case they wish to file a “Notice for Change of Judge”. He also has been known to be harsh towards the Prosecution if they do not comply with the Rules on Discovery issues. When interviewing a Defense Attorney to appear on your behalf, you should inquire whether they have filed for a “Notice for Change of Judge” in the past, and what their experiences have been with this Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: O’ Connor, Karen (Juvenile/ Durango)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: No comment at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Otis, Erin (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge was a former Sex Crimes Prosecutor. Universally, our opinion is that she’s Pro-Prosecution and sometimes can be harsh and temperamental with the Defense bar. However, one of our Attorneys found that she is good for low level Sex Crimes cases, because she has seen much more serious cases in the past. It is highly advisable when interviewing a Defense Attorney to ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what their experiences have been in front of this particular Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Padilla, Jose (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge has a very pleasant demeanor and will take his time and listen to all evidence presented. However, we have found that his Jury selection process can be very lengthy. It is also our opinion that the better researched and briefed the Defense Attorney is prior to walking in front of this Judge, the better the potential result is for the Defendant.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Palmer, David (Juvenile/ Mesa)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: No comment at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Passamonte, Carolyn(Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Popko, Sigmund (4th Ave. Jail)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: No comment at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Rea, John (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: No comment at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Reinstein, Peter (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We have found this Judge to be very beneficial with Settlement Conferences. He helps bring perspective to the Prosecutor in order to have them modify plea agreements and make them more reasonable. He admires efficiency, therefore it is our advice to have a very well prepared Attorney appear on your behalf when in this courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Richter, Virgina (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Roberts, Lisa M. (4th Ave. Jail)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge is a former Prosecutor. It is best to have a very aggressive and well prepared Defense Attorney appear with you in this particular courtroom. Although she is currently handling Initial Appearances at the Jail Court, she is the one who determines Release Conditions and the amount of a bail bond. Again, it is best to have somebody appear on your behalf who is aggressive and well trained.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Rummage, James (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge handled Capital Murder cases at the Public Defender’s Office before taking the bench. He is very smart and knowledgeable in the law. The better the research briefs presented by a well prepared Defense Attorney, the better the results during the pendency of the case and at sentencing.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Ryan, Timothy (Juvenile/ Mesa)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although pleasant, this Judge can be somewhat unpredictable with his Rulings. We advise having a very well prepared Defense Attorney appear with you should you be in his courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Sanders, Teresa (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, she will normally side with the Prosecutor. However, the better briefed and prepared the Defense Attorney, the more she will listen.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Seyer, David (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We found this Judge to be very fair and reasonable when he was only conducting Initial Appearances. Although we feel he has become more Pro-Prosecution since he has taken a full case load, he will listen if a Defense Attorney is well prepared and presents thoroughly researched briefs. It is best to have a skilled, aggressive Attorney with you when appearing in this courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Sinclair, Joan (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that this Judge appreciates a well prepared Defense Attorney who has well researched legal briefs. The better prepared Attorney will usually receive the favorable Ruling in her courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Steinle III, Roland (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We have found this Judge can be temperamental and gruff with both Defense and Prosecuting Attorneys that appear in his courtroom. It is our opinion that temperament sometimes affect Jurors when he is conducting a Jury Trial in his courtroom. When interviewing a Defense Attorney to appear in this court, it is best to ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what their personal experiences are with this particular Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Van Wie, Annielaurie (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge was a former Prosecutor, she has a very pleasant demeanor to both sides. She is always prompt in taking bench, so it is not advisable to be late to her courtroom. In our opinion, she is somewhat Pro-Prosecution when it comes to Settlement Conferences and on Motions to Remand to Grand Jury. We also find that the better prepared the Defense Attorney, and the better written and researched their legal briefs, the more success a Defendant can have in her courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Stephens, Sherry (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge usually makes good and well reasoned Rulings, she tends to defer towards the prosecution on many issues. We have found that the better prepared the Attorney, with well researched briefs, the better the results.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Viola, Danielle (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge has a very pleasant demeanor and will do her own research to ensure that she is accurate with the law. She listens intently to both sides, and will mitigate during a sentencing proceeding. It is our opinion that she is also favorable during Settlement Conferences because she can help persuade a Prosecutor to present a more reasonable plea offer. It is advisable to have a very well prepared Defense Attorney appear in court with you when in this courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Washington, Eartha K. (4th Ave. Jail)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge is currently in the Jail Court determining Release Conditions during Initial Appearances. She’s a former Prosecutor, and appears to be harsh with regard to Release Conditions. She can set high bonds and finds many people to be Non-Bondable when, in our opinion, they were entitled to bond. It would be best to have a very well prepared and aggressive Defense Attorney by your side when appearing in front of her.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Wein, Kevin (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Mainly Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge is highly intelligent and came from the private legal sector prior to taking the bench. He understands the law, and takes very reasonable positions when imposing sentences. It is best to have a very well prepared Defense Attorney who presents very well researched and briefed pleadings prior to appearing in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: White, Susan (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Williams, Paula (4th Ave. Jail)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Woodburn, R. Jeffrey (South Court Tower)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Mainly Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge was a former Prosecutor, he is very good for Settlement Conferences. He understands that some of the Prosecutor’s policies are too harsh, and he can assist in having a Prosecutor offer a more reasonable plea deal.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Riggs, Lyle

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maryvale Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Gastelum, Andy

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2006. We have provided a link that will take you to the Commission’s website. Click This Link – to read all details of the Complaint and the Commission’s Ruling.

Court Name: McDowell Mountain Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Reagan, Michael

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Justice of the Peace can be very reasonable when it comes to sentencing DUI Defendants. It is best to have a skilled Defense Attorney who is well prepared present the law and Mitigation Evidence to this particular Justice of the Peace.

 

Per the Arizona Constitution, a Justice of the Peace (JP) is not required to be a Lawyer, or even to have attended Law school. In fact, a JP is not required to have gone beyond a High School Diploma. JP’s are chosen by popular election and then they are given several weeks of legal/judicial training before taking the bench, which is supplemented with a few more weeks of training annually. This particular JP is not a licensed Arizona Lawyer. It is our opinion that using a Defense Lawyer on your behalf can assist all Non-Lawyer JP’s with navigating the law.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Allen, Robin

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, this particular Judge appears to mainly side with the Prosecution. We found him to sometimes be gruff with Defense Counsel and, overall, be temperamental. When interviewing a Defense Attorney to appear in this courtroom ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what their personal experience is with this particular Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Arriola, Elizabeth

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Neutral, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Boyer-Wells, Valerye

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Mainly Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Mainly Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We find this Judge to be very pleasant and reasonable. The more researched and better prepared the legal briefs and the Defense Attorney, the better the results. At sentencing, she has also been known to waive jail fees if a Defendant is having financial difficulties.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Fujii, Craig

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Garcia, Richard

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge was a former Prosecutor, and a former Judge at the City of Phoenix for many years. Both at the City of Phoenix and City of Mesa, it is our opinion that he has been Pro-Prosecution and at times sentences harshly. In interviewing for a Defense Attorney to appear in front of this Judge, you should ask whether they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is their personal experience in front of this Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Lue Sang, Michelle

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Mainly Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Mainly Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Peters, Lisa

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge was a former Prosecutor. In our opinion, we find her to be Pro-Prosecution and sometimes harsh with her sentences. Some of our Attorney’s have found her to be temperamental, and somewhat condescending toward Defense Attorneys. When interviewing a Defense Attorney, we find it would be best to ask if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge“, and what they have found to be their individual experience in front of this particular Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mesa City Court
Honorable Judge: Tafoya, Matias

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge was a former Judge in the City of Phoenix, and is now the presiding Judge in the City of Mesa. Although he generally appears to be Pro-Prosecution, he will listen and is very responsive to Defense Counsel who are properly prepared and well researched. He has a very professional demeanor in the courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Miami City Court
Honorable Judge: Baeza, Rebecca

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Court Name: Mohave County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Camacho, Doug (Juvenile, Drug Court)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mohave County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Conn, Steven

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2013. We have provided a link that will take you to the Commission’s website. Click This Link – to read all details of the Complaint and the Commission’s Ruling.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mohave County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Gurtler, Charles (Juvenile)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mohave County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Jantzen, Lee

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mohave County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Sipe, Billy

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge was a former Defense Attorney who handled many serious felony cases. He is intelligent and very well reasoned. It would be advisable to appear in his court with a Defense Attorney who is very well prepared and who presents thoroughly researched legal briefs. The better prepared the Defense Attorney, the better the result.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mohave County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Weiss, Richard

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Mohave County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Williams, Rick (Juvenile, Drug Court)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2011. We have provided a link that will take you to the Commission’s website. Click This Link – to read all details of the Complaint and the Commission’s Ruling.

Court Name: Moon Valley Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Macbeth, Rebecca

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Justice of the Peace has been on the bench for many years, and she has gained vast legal knowledge and insight into handling criminal cases. It is our opinion that she has a very pleasant demeanor and will thoroughly listen to all evidence presented without being biased towards the Prosecution. We find it as helpful for a Defendant to have an aggressive, well prepared and thoroughly researched Defense Attorney appear in this court in order to improve maximize their outcome.

 

Per the Arizona Constitution, a Justice of the Peace (JP) is not required to be a Lawyer, or even to have attended Law school. In fact, a JP is not required to have gone beyond a High School Diploma. JP’s are chosen by popular election and then they are given several weeks of legal/judicial training before taking the bench, which is supplemented with a few more weeks of training annually. This particular JP is not a licensed Arizona Lawyer. It is our opinion that using a Defense Lawyer on your behalf can assist all Non-Lawyer JP’s with navigating the law.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: North Canyon City Court
Honorable Judge: Brown, Barbara

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: North Canyon Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Brown, Barbara

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Per the Arizona Constitution, a Justice of the Peace (JP) is not required to be a Lawyer, or even to have attended Law school. In fact, a JP is not required to have gone beyond a High School Diploma. JP’s are chosen by popular election and then they are given several weeks of legal/judicial training before taking the bench, which is supplemented with a few more weeks of training annually. This particular JP is not a licensed Arizona Lawyer. It is our opinion that using a Defense Lawyer on your behalf can assist all Non-Lawyer JP’s with navigating the law.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: North Mesa Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Ash, Cecil

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution, but can be all over the spectrum

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: It is our opinion that this Justice of the Peace appears to defer to the Prosecutor on almost all issues and can be harsh with sentencing. We have also found that he does not conduct his courtroom in a very prompt manner. When appearing in this court, we would advise that a Defendant hire private Defense Counsel to appear on their behalf in order to reduce the number of days off work that would normally be required to attend for court appearances. When interviewing a Defense Attorney, it is best to ask if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what have their personal experiences have been in front of this individual Judge.

 

Per Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Defendant, Defense Attorney or Prosecutor can file for a “Notice Change of Judge” within 10 days of Arraignment or being assigned a particular Judge. A Notice for Change of Judge is filed in order to be reassigned to a different Judge. This can be done by choice as long as the Notice is filed in good faith and not for the purposes of the following: Delay; to obtain severance; to interfere with the reasonable case management practice of a Judge; to remove a Judge for reasons of race, gender or religion. It is also unethical to use Rule 10.2 for these additional reasons: Using the Rule against a particular Judge in blanket fashion by a defender group or Law Firm; in order to obtain a more convenient geographical location; or to obtain an advantage (or avoid disadvantage) in connection with a plea bargain (or sentencing) except as permitted under Rule 17.4(G).

 

In the past, some of our Attorneys have, properly and in good faith, independently chosen to file a “Notice for Change of Judge” when assigned to this particular Judge in order to have a different Judge assigned to their case. It is our opinion that you should ask any Attorney you interview about whether they have ever appeared before your assigned Judge and whether they will, or will not, be filing a “Notice for Change of Judge”

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4

* Disclaimer: These opinions are complied in aggregate and are purely subjective and not based on any empirical research or statistics. You should ask any Attorney you interview for purposes of representation to give you their opinion regarding the individual Judge involved in your case.
* This list is updated bi-annually in January and July.

Click Here for Free ConsultationComparison Questions to Ask when Hiring a Lawyer

Request a Free Consultation

Fill out the form below to recieve a free and confidential intial consultation.

ASSOCIATIONS



10.0 Superb Rating
AVVO Criminal Defense


AV-Highest Rated Preeminent Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell


Nation's Top 1% Attorney
National Association of Distinguished Counsel


Super Lawyer
Criminal & DUI Defense


Top 100 Trial Lawyers
(Criminal Defense)

American Trial Lawyers Association


Client Satisfaction Award
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys


Top 100 Lawyer
American Society of Legal Advocates


Top 10 DUI/DWI Law Firm
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys


Member
National College forDUI Defense


Top 10 Attorney
National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys


Charter Member
Trial Masters


Member
DUI Defense Lawyers Association


Lifetime Charter Member
Best Attorneys of America


Member
American Bar Foundation


Sustaining Member
Arizona Trial Lawyers Association


Member
American Association for Justice


Life Member
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice


Superior DUI Attorney
National Advocacy for DUI Defense


Member Since 1989
American Bar Association


Better Business Bureau
A+ Rating

[contact-form-7 id="34943" title="Exit Intent"]