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

Arizona Court Judges – Page 3

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: North Valley Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Williams, Gerald
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Oracle Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Discher, Nancy
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: Paradise Valley City Court
Honorable Judge: Taber, Tyrrell
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge sometimes will give a speech to Defendants stating that “nothing good ever happens after midnight”, which has left some Defendants feeling that the Judge has predetermined that they were “up to no good” after midnight. It is our opinion that he normally Rules in favor of the Prosecution on procedural and substantive issues, however, he does not appear to be harsh during sentencing. We have found that the better prepared the Defense Attorney, the better the outcome for a Defendant in this particular court.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Parker Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Weis, Charlene

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: Payson City Court
Honorable Judge: Little, Dorthy
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: Peoria City Court
Honorable Judge: Anagnsot, George
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 will work with both the Prosecution and the Defense in order to allow them to complete thorough discovery. He does not rush cases to conclusion.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Bayardi, Marianne
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Our opinion is that this Judge is more concerned with doing a quick Jury Trial rather than allowing the parties to thoroughly cross examine witnesses.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Berry, Carol
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 that this Judge will hold the State to their burden of proof when proving Prior Convictions. This can be beneficial for a Defendant. We recommend having a skilled Defense Attorney who is familiar with attacking Prior Convictions appear on your behalf when in her courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Certa, Cynthia
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 the City of Phoenix. In our opinion, she can be temperamental and has been known to raise her voice at Defense Attorneys. She has been known to add a couple extra days of Jail after a Jury Trial because of a Defendant’s elevated blood alcohol content. All in all, our opinion is that she will usually find a way to Rule in the Prosecutor’s favor. When interviewing an Attorney to represent you, ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is their personal experience 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”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Cota, Francisca
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 read all pleadings and Mitigation Evidence presented on the Defendant’s behalf. If you have an Attorney who has well researched legal briefs and is well prepared, then you will have the best chance of success in her courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Dellas, Hercules
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: If a Defendant is placed on a Continuous Alcohol Monitoring, this Judge will not allow them to travel out of the county. This is very unusual and restrictive. We feel it would be best to have a very experienced and aggressive Attorney file well researched and well reasoned legal briefs when appearing in this Judge’s courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Doyle, Robert
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 Mainly Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge will impose strict time guidelines on both sides. This can work to a Defendant’s favor if the Prosecutor is not proactive and misses one of their deadlines. We feel this Judge has a good demeanor in court and he appreciates well timed sarcasm.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Gonzales, Cynthia
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 is very fair and well reasoned. She has a good demeanor in court.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Griffith, Deborah
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: In our opinion, this is one of the most pleasant Judges on the bench, however, she rarely Rules for the Defense. It appears almost every Ruling is in favor of the Prosecution. When interviewing and hiring a Lawyer, ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what has their individual experience been in front of this particular Judge. Any Attorney who appears on your behalf in her court better have well researched legal briefs combined with an aggressive oral argument.

 

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: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Hernandez, James
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: We find this Judge to be a good Trial Judge. He is very pleasant and has a very balanced courtroom. He does not favor one side over the other.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Hintze, Michael
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Mainly Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge helps resolve cases. He will also listen to and consider all Mitigation Evidence presented to him at sentencing. He has a very good demeanor.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Hudson, Wilbur
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge helps resolve cases. He will also listen to and consider all Mitigation Evidence presented to him at sentencing. He has a very good demeanor.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Jackson, Walter Lee
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge has somewhat neutral Rulings, we did have an Attorney who had the unusual situation where a Pre-Trial Motion was ruled against him after Trial had already begun and they were halfway finished. One of our other Attorneys found that this Judge was fairly conservative and would share those viewpoints with Prosecutors. It is our opinion that you would be best served by having an aggressive and well prepared Defense Attorney who files thoroughly researched and well reasoned legal briefs in his courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Jeffery, Eric
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Mainly 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 and was the presiding Judge in the City of Phoenix at one time. We have found his Rulings to be very reasonable and well balanced, and he does not appear to favor either side.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Kane, Kevin
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: We have found this Judge will always read all legal briefs presented to him, and all Mitigation Evidence presented to him. We found that the better prepared the Defense Attorney, the better results they can achieve for a Defendant. He has a very pleasant demeanor, and will always look out for an individual Defendant’s Constitutional Rights.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Lowery, Laura
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: We have found this Judge to be a good Trial Judge. One of our Attorneys found that although she conducts a good Trial, it takes longer than usual. Many of her Jury Trials will last 3 days for a Misdemeanor DUI.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: McBride, Christopher
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: This Judge was a former Defense Attorney and the head of the Phoenix City Public Defenders Office. He is very knowledgeable about the law, and will hold the Prosecutor to their burden of proof. He does not appear to take the word of a testifying Officer above that of a Non-Officer (which means he is unbiased). If you have a well prepared Defense Attorney, this is a good Judge to be in front of.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Metcalf, Lori
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: This Judge Rules pretty fairly, and does not seem to favor one side over the other. One of our Attorneys feels that she can be a little strict and may have little tolerance for DUI’s. All in all, the better prepared the Defense Attorney, the better the results in her courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Nyquist, Moyelte
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 is very conscientious when reading legal briefs, conducting Evidentiary Hearings and rendering her Rulings. She is very good at spotting inconsistencies in the testimony of Officers, victims and witnesses. This is very beneficial when she conducts Bench Trials. It is our advice to appear with a Defense Attorney who is very well prepared and who has filed thoroughly researched legal briefs in her courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Sampanes, James
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 Judge conducts a very fair Jury Trial. He will listen to all evidence presented, and he will fairly weigh it. It is beneficial to have an aggressive and well prepared Defense Attorney should you appear in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Taylor, Don
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: Phoenix City Court
Honorable Judge: Withey, Carrie
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, this Judge conducts a very fair Trial. She is not afraid to ask for input from both sides, and will listen intently before she makes a Ruling.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Pima County Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Bacal, Susan (Precinct 8)
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although we are of the overall opinion that she is fairly a neutral in making her decisions, some Attorneys believe that she will accept the word of a testifying Officer over that of a Non-Officer. When interviewing an Attorney to represent you, you should ask if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is their individual experience 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: Pima County Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Bee, Keith (Precinct 5)
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: Pima County Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Dolny, Carmin (Precinct 4)
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: Pima County Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Felix, Maria (Precinct 9)
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: Pima County Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Peyton, Jack (Precinct 10)
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: In our opinion this Justice of the Peace is strict, but will be lenient with Defendants who will present good Mitigation Evidence.

 

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: Pima County Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Watters, Adam (Precinct 1)
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2014. 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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Browning, Christopher
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Chon-Lopez, Javier
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Cornelio, Carmine
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 is very fair and well reasoned. He agrees with Sex Registration laws on serious offenders, but does not agree that they should be applied to low level offenders who will potentially lose their jobs and have other serious consequences applied to them.

 

This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2007, 2010 and 2012. 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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Eikleberry, Jane
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: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Fell, Howard (Pro Tem)
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Goday, Teresa (Pro Tem)
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Harrington, Charles
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Lee, Keneth
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Liwski, Danelle
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: McGinley, Casey (Pro Tem)
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Nichols, 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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Rash, Scott
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Roads, Lee Ann
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: Pima County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Tang, Paul
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: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Callahan, Dwight
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: This Judge will often set a case immediately to Trial after the Preliminary Hearing. Almost all other Judges will set a case to a Pre-Trial Conference after the Preliminary Hearing in order to allow the parties to conduct Discovery before making a decision of whether to plead or go to Jury Trial. In our opinion, his policy is irrational. If you choose to remain in his courtroom, it is best to have an aggressive and well prepared Defense Attorney file thoroughly research legal briefs on your behalf. When interviewing a Defense Attorney, ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what their personal experience is with 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”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Fuller, Steven
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: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Georgini, Joseph
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: This Judge can be harsh on Sex Crimes cases. However, we have found that she is very fair when conducting Simpson Hearings, which can result in a Defendant being released on Bond, rather than being held Non-Bondable throughout dependency of a case. We find it best to have a very experienced Defense Attorney who is thoroughly prepared and will file concisely researched and well reasoned legal briefs on your behalf.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Gooday, Henry “Hank” (Juvenile)
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, but can be all over the spectrum

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Although this Judge was a former Prosecutor in Maricopa County, he is a fair and well balanced Judge regarding his Rulings. He is extremely helpful at Settlement Conferences in convincing Prosecutors to offer more reasonable deals. He is generally Pro-Defendants Rehabilitation for sentencing, but will be harsh if the case involves victim of a violent crime. All in all, a good Judge to be in front of.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: McCarville, Stephen
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: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Oldham, Brenda (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: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Soos, Bradley
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Prosecution to Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Wharton, Lawrence
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: 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: Pinal County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: White, Kevin
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: We find this Judge to have a very good demeanor. If you provide him with significant justification, well researched and through legal briefs, then he will Rule in the Defendant’s favor. In the past, he has Ruled in our favor to obtain social media records, and has appointed experts for indigent clients at the State’s expense. If you give him proof that the law and facts are on his side, then he will make significant Rulings on behalf of a Defendant. On a side note, this Judge was a Star Quarterback at West Virginia University in the early 1980’s.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Pinetop Lakeside Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Widmaier, David

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: Prescott City Court
Honorable Judge: Markham, Arthur
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: In our opinion, this Judge appears to be very friendly with the Prosecutors and the Officers who appear in his court. One of our Attorneys conducted an Evidentiary Hearing regarding an Officers denial of a Defendant’s request for an Independent Blood Test on a DUI case. The Judge Ruled for the State, and then admonished the Officer to “not let it happen again, “and “this is a learning experience”. This appeared to be an odd comment to make to an Officer immediately after Ruling that the Officer had done nothing wrong and had not violated the Defendant’s rights.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Prescott Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Markham, Arthur
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: In our opinion, this Judge appears to be very friendly with the Prosecutors and the Officers who appear in his court. One of our Attorneys conducted an Evidentiary Hearing regarding an Officers denial of a Defendant’s request for an Independent Blood Test on a DUI case. The Judge Ruled for the State, and then admonished the Officer to “not let it happen again, “and “this is a learning experience”. This appeared to be an odd comment to make to an Officer immediately after Ruling that the Officer had done nothing wrong and had not violated the Defendant’s rights.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Prescott Valley Magistrate Court
Honorable Judge: Carson, Keith
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: Round Valley Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Geisler, Sherry
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: Sahuarita City Court
Honorable Judge: Avilez, Maria
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: Salome Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Slaughter, Karen
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: San Marcos Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Frankel, Keith
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, our Attorneys have found this Justice of the Peace to be temperamental and sometimes gruff towards Defense Counsel. It is our opinion that he appears to take the testimony of an Officer as more credible than that of a Non-Officer. When interviewing an Attorney to represent you, you should ask if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is their individual experience with 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.

 

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”

 

This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2012. 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: San Tan Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Goodman, Samuel
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: Some of our Attorneys have found this Justice of the Peace to be slow with making his Rulings. However, he is not afraid to Rule on the Defendant’s behalf if the law and facts are on their side. It is best to have an Attorney who is aggressive and well prepared when appearing in his courtroom. All legal briefs should be thoroughly researched and well reasoned in order to give you the best advantage.

 

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: Scottsdale City Court
Honorable Judge: Blake, James
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: In our opinion, this Judge can sometimes be temperamental and a bit gruff towards both sides. He will conduct a fair Trial and is not afraid to make Rulings on a Defendant’s behalf. It is best to hire an Attorney who is well prepared, prompt and who files legal briefs that are thoroughly researched and well reasoned. When interviewing a Defense Attorney, ask if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is their individual experience 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: Scottsdale City Court
Honorable Judge: Hendrix, Statia
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: This Judge was a former Prosecutor in the City of Scottsdale. She can be temperamental and has been known to occasionally raise her voice at Defense Counsel in front of Jurors. However, one of our Attorneys has conducted 2 Bench Trials in front of her and she rendered verdicts of not guilty. When interviewing a Defense Attorney to appear on your behalf, ask if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is their individual experience 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: Scottsdale City Court
Honorable Judge: Jenja, Orest
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: We have found this Judge’s Rulings to be well reasoned. He has a very good demeanor, and he will make accommodations to treat indigent and Pro-Per Defendants fairly. Your odds of success will be improved if you have a Defense Attorney who is well prepared, aggressive and has filed well researched legal pleadings on your behalf.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Scottsdale City Court
Honorable Judge: Olcavage, Joseph
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to Mainly Neutral
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge is the presiding Judge for the City of Scottsdale. His legal Rulings are very well reasoned and fair. He has a good demeanor and treats people well in the courtroom. Unfortunately, he usually will not preside over a Jury Trial if it is going to be more than 1 day (which is quite often with DUI’s).

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Sedona City Court
Honorable Judge: Levin, Lewis
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: South Mountain Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Williams, Cody
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: In our opinion, this Justice of the Peace’s courtroom can be extremely slow. He does not often take the bench in a timely manner. If appearing in his courtroom, it is best to hire a Defense Attorney to appear on your behalf in order to minimize the number of days you need to take off of work to appear in court. You should also have an Attorney who is aggressive, well prepared and files thoroughly researched legal pleadings on your behalf.

 

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.

 

This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2009. 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: Star Valley City Court
Honorable Judge: Little, Dorthy
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: Superior Kearney Justice / City Court
Honorable Judge: Bravo, Larry
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.

 

This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2014. 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: Surprise City Court
Honorable Judge: Dominguez, Louis
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 have found this Judge to be very knowledgeable and intelligent. He sits on the Judicial Commission regarding Ethics. He was a former Training Attorney in the City of Phoenix Prosecutors office, and then he was a former City of Phoenix Judge. He has a good demeanor and his Rulings during Jury Trials are very well thought out and well reasoned. The better prepared your Attorney, the better the potential result in his courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Tempe City Court
Honorable Judge: Barsetti, Mary Jo
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: Although this Judge was a former Prosecutor in the City of Phoenix, she is a very fair and well balanced Judge on the bench. She conducts a good Jury Trial, and will listen to well reasoned objections. As always, the better prepared your Defense Attorney, the better researched their legal briefs, then the better chance you have in her courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Tempe City Court
Honorable Judge: Harris, Danielle
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: Tempe City Court
Honorable Judge: Majestic, Mary Anne
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Mainly Harsh to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, this Judge can have a temperamental disposition. She has been known to sometimes raise her voice both at Defense Counsel and at Defendants. When hiring an Attorney to appear in front of her court, you should ask if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is 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: Tempe City Court
Honorable Judge: Olson, Elizabeth
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge was a former Prosecutor. It appears that she leans in the Prosecutors favor, and that she gives more credibility to the testimony of Officers than Non-Officers. It would be advisable to hire an aggressive and well prepared Defense Attorney to appear on your behalf. In our opinion, it will be necessary to have thoroughly researched and well reasoned legal briefs filed in her courtroom in order to overcome her prosecutorial background.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Tempe City Court
Honorable Judge: Robinson, Thomas
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: Although this Judge was a former Prosecutor in the City of Phoenix, he has a very pleasant disposition and is very fair to the Defense. His legal Rulings are well reasoned, he is very knowledgeable on the law, and he does not give a testifying Officer more credibility than a Non-Officer. This is a good courtroom to be in.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Tolleson City Court
Honorable Judge: Quezeda, Diana
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
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 2013. We have provided a link that will take you to the Commission’s website. Click This Link – read all details of the Complaint and the Commission’s Ruling.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Berning, Thomas
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: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Bownan, Ken
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: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Chayet, Nikki
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, this Judge leans in favor of the Prosecution on almost all issues. Recently, one of our Attorneys conducted a Hearing in her courtroom in which he felt she took over the questioning for the Prosecutor in order to conduct the Hearing on their behalf. When interviewing an Attorney to appear on your behalf, ask them if they have ever filed a “Notice for Change of Judge”, and what is their individual experience 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: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Cranshaw, T. Jay
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: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Geraldine, Hale
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Pro-Defendant’s Rehabilitation

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, this Judge will thoroughly protect a Defendant’s Constitutional Rights. She will hold the Prosecutor to their burden of proof and mandate that they prove each and every element of a crime before Ruling in the Prosecutor’s favor. We find her legal reasoning to be fair and well balanced. As always, we advise that you hire an aggressive and well prepared Defense Attorney who will present thoroughly researched and well reasoned briefs on your behalf. This will give you the best chance in this courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Klotz, Jeffrey
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: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Million, Wendy
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: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Pollard, Michael
Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion
Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

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.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Riojas Jr., Antonio
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: Tucson City Court
Honorable Judge: Shetter, Susan
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.

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.

Click here for important legal disclaimer.

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"]