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

Arizona Court Judges

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

  • 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.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4


Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Agua Fria Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Guzman, Joe “Pep”

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

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

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Justice of the Peace has been known to rarely start court on time. Many of his Rulings have exceeded the 60 day maximum allowed time, and this has resulted in him being admonished by the Judicial Commission. He has been known to allow witnesses to testify telephonically at Trial (possibly in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution), as well as have other Rulings reversed on appeal. It is our opinion that it would be very helpful to have an Attorney assist a Defendant with explaining the nuances of the law to this particular Judge.

 

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 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: Apache County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Latham, Michael

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: Apache County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Perkins, Allen (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: Apache County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Roca, Michael (Pro Tem)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

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

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge has been known to thoroughly examine mitigation evidence presented on a defendant’s behalf. He can be very understanding and very fair.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Apache County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Wilkins, Kay (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: Apache Junction City Court
Honorable Judge: Hazel Jr., James

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

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Sometimes his court proceedings can be very slow. It is our opinion that having an Attorney appear on your behalf will save you large amounts of time that you would normally take off of work in order to attend court. This Judge usually will not interfere with any plea deals negotiated between the Defendant’s Attorney and the Prosecutor. This can be very beneficial when arranging plea agreements.


Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Apache Junction Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Babeu, Shaun

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Justice of the Peace normally will not interfere with any agreements reached between the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney. This can be very beneficial when negotiating plea agreements. It is our opinion that this Justice of the Peace will almost always accept the credibility of an Officer’s testimony over that of a Non-Officer. We find it is very difficult to get a Defense Ruling in his court.

 

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: Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Wolcott, Dean

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: Arrowhead Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Wismer, Craig

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

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: Avondale City Court
Honorable Judge: Jennings, Craig

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 is a Former Prosecutor, he will hold the Prosecutor to strict compliance when conducting a sentencing. He does appear to take the word of an Officer over that of a Non-Officer.


Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Buckeye City Court
Honorable Judge: Brewer, Maria

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: She is a very pleasant and polite Judge. However, she has been known to not give home detention on a DUI case until 15 days have been served in jail. This can be a bit harsh, and it is our opinion that it may be beneficial to have an Attorney assist you should you have an Extreme DUI or a Prior DUI Conviction going into her court.


Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Bullhead City Court
Honorable Judge: Psareas, Pete

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: Bullhead City Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Moss, Jon

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: Carefree / Cave Creek Consolidated City Court
Honorable Judge: Olohan, Stephanie

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 was a former Administrative Law Judge for the Motor Vehicle Department. While at MVD it appeared that she very rarely ruled in favor of the Defendant. However, we do find her to be a very fair Judge on the criminal bench.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Casa Grande City Court
Honorable Judge: O’Neil, Christopher

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Casa Grande Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Ellsworth, John

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

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: Chandler City Court
Honorable Judge: Lafleur, Gary

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We have found this Judge to be somewhat gruff and harsh in sentencing if you do not have a specified sentence Pre-Negotiated in your plea agreement with the Prosecutor.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Chandler City Court
Honorable Judge: Skupin, Alicia

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: Chandler City Court
Honorable Judge: Traynor, 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 to Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge will not allow you to plead guilty at an Initial Appearance on a DUI charge. He does this in order to allow the Prosecutor time to attempt to track down any Prior DUI Convictions. He also will not give Diversion dispositions on shoplifting cases. If you have a DUI or shoplifting charge, it is our opinion that it would be helpful to have a defense Attorney assist you with your case.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Cochise County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Irwin, 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: Cochise County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Kelliher Jr., John

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: Coconino County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Brown-Nichols, Cathleen

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: Coconino County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Hatch, Jacqueline

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: Coconino County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Moran, Mark

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

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

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Court Name: Coconino County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Reed, Ted

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: Coconino County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Slayton, Dan

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Neutral

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Coolidge City Court
Honorable Judge: Garcia, Elisa “Georgie”

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: Country Meadows Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Hubberman, Anna

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 Justice of the Peace use to be a former Court Interpreter for Spanish speakers until she ran for the Justice of the Peace position. She appears to mainly exercise her discretion in favor of the Prosecution. Her Rulings do not appear to be well reasoned. She also has been known to be gruff with Defense Attorney’s.

 

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”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Desert Ridge Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Jayne, Clancy

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 Justice of the Peace has been known to be very unpredictable with his legal reasoning. It is our opinion that a Defense Attorney would be helpful in assisting and explaining the nuances of the law to this particular Judge.

 

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 2011, 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: Downtown Phoenix Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Hernandez, Jimmie

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: This Justice of the Peace has been known to mindlessly deny Motions to Continue purely in the interest of judicial economy. It is our opinion that it would be helpful to have a Defense Attorney assist you with explaining the nuances of the law 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: Dreamy Draw Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Conti, Frank

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 Justice of the Peace happens to actually be an Attorney. He is very professional and intelligent and helps both sides move a case forward to conclusion. He is very knowledgeable.

 

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: East Mesa Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Russell, Keith

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

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

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Justice of the Peace is pleasant, but his court staff can be very off-putting. We have not had pleasant experiences with his staff.

 

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: El Mirage City Court
Honorable Judge: Morgan, Monte

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: This particular Judge used to be the Presiding Judge in the City of Scottsdale. He has been known to be temperamental, but he will Rule in a Defendant’s favor if the law is on his side. It is our opinion that it is helpful to have a Defense Attorney assist you in presenting your case to him.

 

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: Eloy Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Tarango, Eustino “Tino”

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinon

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: Encanto Justice Court
Honorable Judge: McMurry, Steven

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 2010. 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: Estrella Mountain Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Fine, Jeff

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: Flagstaff City Court
Honorable Judge: Chotena, 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: Flagstaff City Court
Honorable Judge: Araujo, Michael

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 has a very pleasant disposition.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Flagstaff Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Grodman, Howard

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: Florence City Court
Honorable Judge: Kaiser, Katherine

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: Florence Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Shope, Tom

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: Fountain Hills City Court
Honorable Judge: Melton, Robert

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 particular Judge is very pleasant and polite. He does not look to hammer Defendants at sentencing. He serves as a Judge in both Fountain Hills and Guadalupe.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Gila County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Chambers, Bryan

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: Gila County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Flake, Dee

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: Gila County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Scales, Gary (Pro Tem)

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: This Judge is very knowledgeable and is a career Criminal Law Attorney. Well reasoned Rulings.

Court Name: Gila County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Wright, Timothy

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: Gilbert City Court
Honorable Judge: Cutchen, David

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights, 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: Many Arizona Defense Attorneys find that he is the best Judge to be in front of for a Defendant. However, there are some that feel he will not Rule in the Defendant’s favor. Overall, the opinion is that a Defendant will get a fair shake in this Judge’s court room.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Gilbert City Court
Honorable Judge: Dunham, James

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution to 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: This Judge is a Former Prosecutor who was briefly a Defense Attorney. Although he is very pleasant and knowledgeable in the law, he tends to accept a Police Officer’s testimony as more credible than that of Non-Police Officers, and will Rule mostly in the Prosecutor’s favor.

 

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: Gilbert City Court
Honorable Judge: Hudson, John

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: In our opinion, not a good courtroom to be in for a Defendant. Our experience is that this Judge will Rule in the Prosecutor’s favor and finds Police Officer’s to be more credible than Non-Police Officer’s. He can sentence very harshly.

 

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: Gilbert City Court
Honorable Judge: Laurin-Walker, Nicole

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

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

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge was a Former Prosecutor in the City of Gilbert. Many of our Attorneys feel that she will deny Motions to Continue automatically in the interest of judicial economy. She also appears to lean towards the Prosecutors point of view.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Glendale City Court
Honorable Judge: Baxter, Jean

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: Some of our Attorneys have the opinion that this Judge’s mood dictates her decisions.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Glendale City Court
Honorable Judge: Burkholder, John

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 Mainly Neutral

Read More About This Judge

Comments: Some of our Attorneys have found that this Judge will hold the Prosecutor to a high burden of proof, and hold them accountable to the technical legal procedural Rules. However, one of our Attorneys found that he did not do this in regards to an issue of an Independent Blood Test on a DUI case. It may be helpful to have private Defense Counsel assist you with helping explain the nuances of the Discovery Rules to this particular Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Glendale City Court
Honorable Judge: Delgado, Manuel

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 find this Judge to have a good perspective when it comes to criminal trials. He appears to genuinely weigh all evidence when making his Rulings.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Glendale City Court
Honorable Judge: Finn, Elizabeth

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 was a long time Judge for The City of Phoenix. She is very knowledgeable when it comes to the law. She now conducts the majority of the Settlement Conferences in The City of Glendale and appears to usually attempt to steer a Defendant into accepting the Prosecutor’s plea. It is our opinion that it is beneficial to have a knowledgeable and energetic Defense Attorney appear on your behalf in front of this Judge.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Globe City Court
Honorable Judge: Perlman, John

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: Globe Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Bolinger, Jesse

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: Goodyear City Court
Honorable Judge: Simonson, Michael

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Mainly Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights, 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 Judge is very professional, pleasant and easy to work with. He allows Defense Attorneys and Prosecutors to work out plea agreements without interfering with them. At Evidentiary Hearings and Trials, he listens intently and issues very well reasoned and fair Rulings.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Graham County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Peterson, Michael

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: Guadalupe City Court
Honorable Judge: Melton, Robert

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: No Opinion

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinon

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge is very pleasant and polite. He does not look to hammer Defendants at sentencing. He serves as a Judge in both Fountain Hills and Guadalupe.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Hassayampa Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Keegan, Miles

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 it would be very beneficial to have a Defense Attorney assist a Defendant with an explanation of the nuances of the law to this particular Justice of the Peace. This Justice of the Peace seems to defer to the Prosecutor on most issues.

 

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”

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Hayden 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: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Highland Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Urie, Steve

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: 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: Ironwood Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Getzwiller, Joe

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: : Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Justice of the Peace has been known to be somewhat gruff. He appears to defer to the Prosecution on most issues. It may be helpful to have a Defense Attorney assist you in this particular court room.

 

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: Kingman City Court
Honorable Judge: Singer, Jeffrey

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: Kingman-Cerbat Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Huerta, David

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: Kingman-Cerbat Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Taylor, John

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: Kyrene Justice Court
Honorable Judge: McComish, John

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: Although this Justice of the Peace is new to the bench, he appears to be very pleasant and fair. We have had a Trial where a Defendant was acquitted of Extreme DUI, yet convicted of a regular DUI. Although the Prosecutor pushed for a harsher sentence due to the allegation of an Extreme reading, this Justice of the Peace properly chose not to use this as an aggravating factor, due to the fact that the jury had found our client not guilty of the Extreme DUI charge.

 

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.

Court Name: La Paz County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Vederman, Samuel

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
Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Lake Havasu City Court
Honorable Judge: Kalauli, Mitch

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

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

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge will routinely require out-of-County Defendants and Defense Counsel to needlessly appear in person at all court dates. Although many Defense Attorney’s will push a case to conclusion in order to avoid having to drive to Lake Havasu multiple times, we will not do this. We will fight the case to its conclusion. It is also our opinion that this particular Judge sides with the Prosecutor on most issues, and finds the Police Officers more credible then Non-Police Officers at Evidentiary Hearings and Jury Trials. We feel it would be most beneficial to have an aggressive Defense Attorney appear in this court on your behalf.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Lake Havasu Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Davis, Jill

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge will routinely require out-of-County Defendants and Defense Counsel to needlessly appear in person at all court dates. Although many Defense Attorney’s will push a case to conclusion in order to avoid having to drive to Lake Havasu multiple times, we will not do this. We will fight the case to its conclusion. It is our opinion that this Justice of the Peace will side with the Prosecutor on most issues. It is important to get all terms of a sentencing stipulated in a Plea Agreement, rather than allowing this Justice of the Peace to have discretion, as she may sentence more harshly. We feel that it would be beneficial to have a Defense Attorney appear on a Defendants behalf in this particular court.

 

This Judge received a Disciplinary Action from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2008. 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: Litchfield City Court
Honorable Judge: Ring, Craig

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: This particular Judge is a Former Prosecutor. He will normally require full jail costs from a Defendant, even if it is an absurd amount of money. This often sets up a Defendant for failure. We feel that it would be most beneficial to have a Defense Attorney advocate on your behalf 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: Mammoth Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Estrada, Arnold

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: Manistee Justice Court
Honorable Judge: Watts, Donald

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Neutral

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: Maricopa City Court
Honorable Judge: Georgini, Teresa

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 very pleasant and professional. She will allow the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney to work together in order to resolve cases in a reasonable manner.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Abe, Alysson (4th Ave Jail)

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

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): No Opinion

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This Judge conducts Initial Appearances at the Jail Court. She often applies high bonds and restrictive Release Conditions on Defendants. However, if a Defendant has a private Defense Attorney who is knowledgeable about the law and is aggressive, she will listen and potentially release a person on their Own Recognizance without electronic ankle monitoring or a bond.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Adelman, Jay (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: Although this Judge is a Former Prosecutor, he is very fair and well reasoned in his judicial rulings. He also does not look to be unnecessarily harsh during a sentencing.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Astrowsky, Brad (Central Court Building)

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: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Bachus, Allison (Juvenile / Durango)

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: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Beene, James (Juvenile / Mesa)

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: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Beresky, Justin (Mesa / Southeast Facility)

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: Bernstein, Jerry (South Court Tower)

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: Although this Judge is a Former Prosecutor, and some Defense Attorney’s find him to be harsh during sentencing, he has been somewhat reasonable in determining Release Conditions when he was at Jail Court. He also appears to be reasonable in granting continuances during the Pretrial Conferences. We still advise that it would be beneficial to have an aggressive Defense Attorney by your side when in his courtroom.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Bodow, Keelan (South Court Tower)

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

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

Read More About This Judge

Comments: This particular Judge has a Child Protective Services (CPS) background. She appears to lean towards the Prosecution if given discretion. We feel it is advisable to have a Defense Attorney advocate on your behalf when in this particular court room.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Commissioner: Brickner, Nicole (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: Brian, Mark (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 Judge: Coffey, Rodrick (Juvenile / Mesa)

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: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Cohen, Bruce (Juvenile / Durango)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Defendant’s Constitutional Rights to 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: This Judge is very pleasant and professional. He is also very knowledgeable with the law. He is very thoughtful and well reasoned in his Rulings and he’s not afraid to use his discretion when finding Mitigating Factors while sentencing a Defendant.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Como, Greg (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 Judge: Contes, Connie (Juvenile / Durango)

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: None at this time.

Attention: Purely Subjective Opinion

Court Name: Maricopa County Superior Court
Honorable Judge: Coury, Christopher (Central Court Building)

Opinion of Legal / Procedural Rulings: Pro-Prosecution

Opinion of Sentencing (if given discretion): Harsh

Read More About This Judge

Comments: We have found this Judge to be temperamental at times and occasionally gruff with Defense Attorneys. It is our opinion that a skilled Defense Attorney could be of assistance when appearing in front of this 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.

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"]