Posted on 12/12/2006 6:23:10 AM PST by radar101
Andrew Thomas, County Attorney
On December 5, 2006, 7he decision of a Maricopa County jury to find an illegal immigrant guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Human Smuggling under Arizona's new law was set by Judge Thomas O'Toole. This extraordinary decision contradicts two of the judge's own prior rulings and overturns a unanimous jury verdict from a cross-section of citizens reached after less than an hour of deliberations.
This latest ruling, while disappointing, is not entirely surprising. Judge O'Toole has changed his mind about these issues a number of times. In the course of handling several of this office's smuggling cases, he has reversed himself on several key areas of the law.
Fortunately, this ruling can and will be appealed. In fact, our office already has filed a notice of appeal with the state Court of Appeals.
Other Superior Court judges handling these cases have so far accepted the guilty pleas of illegal immigrants in similar factual situations and have allowed the state to go forward with prosecution. Recently a different judge allowed a second smuggling case to go to the jury, and that jury found the illegal immigrant defendant guilty of conspiring to commit human smuggling.
The courts of this state should not single out illegal immigrants as the one politically correct class of people exempted from Arizona's conspiracy laws. Our laws apply to everyone alike. I look forward to a clarification of these issues on appeal, and in the meantime, my office will continue to prosecute these cases and to hold accountable all of those who violate our laws.
I want to commend Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for taking defendant Guzman-Garcia into custody. This is an encouraging departure from past practice, and I appreciate the change in approach.
Our smuggling prosecution program remains a highly successful one, with more than 160 convictions to date and a 90 percent conviction rate.
Judge Thomas O'Toole seems to be placing his need for neatly trimmed grass over the decision of the people to punish people for trafficking in human flesh.
Suck gas, evil-doer!
but seriously, judges make it a habit of over-stepping their bounds and creating a precedent for everything. Somehow it's illegal to say illegals are illegal? Buh?
The right of a judge to overturn a jury can be a good thing. For example, I wish Judge Ito had the guts to overturn the jury's verdict in the OJ case. Despite problems with the prosecution, it was obvious that OJ did it...yet the jury, not wishing to appear racist, decided to acquit him.
But this right, like just about everything else, gets abused all the time. We have so many judge who only want to get their names in the paper. They make idiotic rulings that have nothing to do with justice, but everything to do with inflating their ego and self-importance.
"Judge Thomas O’Toole of Maricopa County Superior Court issued an opinion on June 9, 2006, dismissing defense arguments that federal law preempted the state law, and noting that the states are only preempted from making law where specifically prohibited in federal law. O’Toole cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision De Canas v. Bica (1976), which held that California law penalizing employers for hiring illegal immigrants was not preempted by the exclusive federal law to regulate immigration. The Supreme Court opinion stated, “[This court] has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se preempted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised.”
The federal government has not made any law or regulation preempting the states from passing laws regulating human smuggling. Although preemption is an excuse frequently referred to by politicians, it is a red herring used to avoid debate on the merits of enforcing laws against illegal immigration.
Judge O’Toole was equally dismissive of arguments that conspiracy doesn’t apply to the crime of human smuggling. The defense argued that the legislature didn’t intend to apply conspiracy law to the new statute. O’Toole said this wasn’t true, and that the legislative history and plain language of the statute clearly supported application of the conspiracy law."
The judge must have an `evil twin'
"The right of a judge to overturn a jury can be a good thing."
I'm not sure but I believe this is a one way thing. A guilty verdict can be overturned but not a not-guilty verdict.
Legally, the case is a nightmare. The judge has to consider conflicting case law sometimes more than once in the same paragraph. What's worse, is that for much of the trial there isn't any case law at all.
There are overlapping jurisdictions of multiple federal and State agencies, even treaty obligations requiring notifications to the Mexican embassy.
All he can hope to do is clear up some of the peripheral issues, because everyone knows the case will be appealed, and this will make it easier for them.
It's a real good indicator of a confusing charlie foxtrot of a case when a judge has to set aside his own decision--no reflection on him.
Right. That's how I understood it as well.
Was this supposed to say, "set aside"?
And the Judge and the Prosecutor were "Pussies", not wanting to be accused of RACISM!
ping
--yet the jury, not wishing to appear racist, decided to acquit him. --
Correction: yet the jury, wishing to appear racist, decided to acquit him.
And used exceedingly rarely in cases of gross, obvious injustice...which this isn't.
If there's a real error, you can bet it will be litigated on appeal. Where it should be.
And note that that is right where Mr. Thomas is headed, as he should be.
Meanwhile, the judge who earns $150K per year, could not be reached at his $10 million home. /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.