Commission on Judicial Conduct
1501 W. Washington Street, Suite 229
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 452-3200
Email us at cjc@courts.az.gov

Dear Commission Investigator:

I am concerned about the conduct of the judge and bailiffs, which occurred on Oct.19, 2009 in the Maricopa County courtroom. I found the problematic material on a youtube video which you may reference here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIoyJ-LyAaE&feature=player_embedded

Essentially, a bailiff, Adam Stoddard, took a document from defense attorney, Joanne Cuccia’s files without her knowledge. Stoddard gave the document to another bailiff, Francisco Campillo who then left the courtroom.

As for the Judge she may have violated the following Cannons of Judicial Conduct http://www.supreme.state.az.us/ethics/NewCode/Internet%20version%20MASTER%209-14-09.pdf and should face a disciplinary investigation and possible disciplinary action:

RULE 1.1. Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULE 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Rule 2.12. Supervisory Duties

(A) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to act in a manner consistent with the judge’s obligations under this code.
…
(C) A judge shall require staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to comply with the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees adopted by the supreme court.

There is no doubt that the bailiff took a document that belonged to the defense attorney, handed it to another bailiff who then left the court.

Bailiff Stoddard has alleged as a defense that an officer can seize evidence or make an arrest if he sees a crime taking place. Yet there is no evidence any crime took place or that the bailiff had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. http://www.heatcity.org/2009/10/detention-officer-tries-to-explain-why.html

This appears to be a violation the both the CJC and the CCJE. The judge has apparently failed to execute her duties to supervise her employees. Disciplinary investigation is warranted under the CJC.

As for the employees of the court they should be investigated and if appropriate disciplined under the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/ethics/Employee%20Code/Employee_Code_of_Conduct.pdf :

CANON 1
JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
A. Independence. Judicial employees shall maintain high standards
of conduct so the independence of the judiciary is preserved.
B. Integrity. Judicial employees shall maintain and observe the
highest standards of integrity, honesty, and truthfulness in their professional
and personal dealings.

CANON 2
JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND
THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL
THEIR ACTIVITIES
A. Compliance with Law. Judicial employees shall respect and
comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

CANON 3
JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES SHALL PERFORM THEIR DUTIES
IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY
A. Professionalism. Judicial employees shall be patient, prompt
and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others who
come in contact with the court.

Bailiff Stoddard needs to be investigated both for his action on October 19, 2009 and for his testimony at the following contempt hearing. Taking the document absent valid reason or probable cause of criminal activity would clearly violate the CCJE.

At the contempt hearing it is unclear but Stoddard appears to have contradicted himself while testifying. This is a reasonable indicator that Stoddard is not telling the truth or attempting to justify his actions. Such actions are clear violations of the high standards required by the CCJE.

Disciplinary investigation is warranted under the CCJE.

Bailiff Francisco Campillo’s actions must be further evaluated to determine his knowledge and state of mind to determine whether his actions were in accord with the CCJE.

Further, if Mr. Stoddard and/or Mr. Campillo are subject to ethical scrutiny as Sheriffs deputies or detention officers this matter should be transferred to the appropriate authority for investigation.

Sincerely,

And the last issue is perception by their subjects (thus you). The US in contrast to Germany (f.e.) never experienced the negative sides of federal-wide strong-arming police men (may it be SA, Gestapo or some other form of Nazi police). This has led to the forming of a relatively mild police force after WW II and a clear set of rules that police men have to abide to. SWAT teams are impossible for most situations here in Germany. That’s why the German police is the mildest and less aggressive police force in respect to their neighbours.