You are on page 1of 3

Michael K.

Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** 08/27/2013 8:00 AM

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CR 1989-012631 08/23/2013

HON. ROSA MROZ

CLERK OF THE COURT J. Matlack Deputy

STATE OF ARIZONA v. DEBRA JEAN MILKE (A)

VINCE H IMBORDINO

MICHAEL D KIMERER LORI L VOEPEL JULIE S HALL MICHAEL L BURKE CAPITAL CASE MANAGER AMY KRAUSS P.O. BOX 65126 TUCSON AZ 85728-5126

CAPITAL/COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE/ MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT 2:53 p.m. Courtroom 7D - SCT State's Attorney: Defendant's Attorney: Defendant: Vince Imbordino Michael Kimerer & Lori Voepel Present

Court Reporter, Monica Hill-Morrisette, is present. A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.

Docket Code 020

Form R027

Page 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CR 1989-012631 08/23/2013

Discussion held regarding whether Detective Saldate needs a lawyer to represent him in the suppression hearing because the Ninth Circuit referred him to the U.S. Attorney's Office to investigate whether Detective Saldate committed any civil rights violations. The State's prosecutor, Vincent Imbordino, states that to his knowledge the U.S. Attorney has not taken any action to investigate anyone arising out of this case. He does not believe that Detective Saldate wants an attorney to represent him at the hearing. IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Imbordino shall discuss this issue with Detective Saldate and if Detective Saldate wants an attorney to represent him and whether he wants this Court to appoint him an attorney for the hearing. Mr. Imbordino shall notify this Court by September 6, 2013. Discussion held regarding the State's Motion to Continue Suppression Hearing and Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Motion to Suppress. The State needs to gather evidence to rebut the findings made by the Ninth Circuit opinion about Detective Saldate. The defense does not object and states that it will need time to reply to the evidence that the State gathers. Additionally, the defense will be filing a motion to preclude the evidence that the State wants to introduce in the suppression hearing because they believe the Ninth Circuit opinion findings are the law of the case. IT IS ORDERED granting the State's Motion to Continue Suppression Hearing and Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Motion to Suppress, and resetting the suppression hearing to September 23, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. The Court will reserve 4 afternoons for this hearing and also to address any other motions that are ready to be argued at that time. Discussion held regarding the Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Maricopa County Attorney's Office as Prosecuting Agency in This Case. IT IS ORDERED taking this Motion under advisement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Simpson Hearing date of August 30, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in this division. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Evidentiary Hearing dates of September 3, 2013 and September 4, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in this division. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORTS: No less than two working days before each Case Management Conference, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Report. This report will inform the court of: Docket Code 020
Form R027

Page 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CR 1989-012631 08/23/2013

1. The specific progress made since the last Case Management Conference in completing activities previously established by the court and the parties; 2. Specific case preparation to be completed before the next Case Management Conference; 3. Witnesses who have been interviewed in the preceding month; 4. Witnesses who will be interviewed in the upcoming month; 5. Pending issues to be resolved. IT IS ORDERED that no time be excluded. LAST DAY REMAINS: October 7, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming prior custody orders. 3:51 p.m. Matter concludes. This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp. Attorneys are encouraged to review Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 to determine their mandatory participation in eFiling through AZTurboCourt. LATER: The Court has reviewed the State's Motion for Taking Physical Evidence and Proposed Order, the Defendant's Response, and James Styers' Objection. The Court notes that Roger Scott did not object. The Court deems Scott's failure to object as consent to the granting of the State's Motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED granting the State's Motion for Taking Physical Evidence (buccal swabs) as to Roger Scott only. The Court agrees with the arguments made by Styers. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED denying the State's Motion for Taking Physical Evidence (buccal swabs) as to James Styers, without prejudice. The State may file another motion to take buccal swabs from Styers once it makes the necessary showings as described in Styers' Objection.

Docket Code 020

Form R027

Page 3