November 20, 2009
November 26th, 2009


Jim, I agree the Arizona Bar was probably not going to do anything regarding the conduct of my prosecutor, Rachel Phipps-Yonas during my trial. I knew the type of response I would get before I ever filed the complaint. However, I did it for more than just placing her name before the Bar Association. I did it so readers could read my complaint and know what type of injustice actually occurs here in Maricopa County. If I simply tell the world that injustice is acceptable in Arizona I probably would be seen as just an angry individual who lost at trial. However, by filing the document I did and placing it for everyone to read, it gives my critics at Maricopa.Gov ability to dispute the facts. Unfortunately, they can’t dispute my statements because they are true.

Did anyone see the news clip on CNN regarding the blatant disregard for constitutional protections here in Arizona? Did anyone see the clip showing a Maricopa County Deputy steal a document from a defense attorney’s briefcase as she had her back turned? Did anyone see the clip of the Maricopa County Superior Court Judge defend the action as possibly appropriate? I know Carl Davis commented on this, but I want to give some details as to what occurred right here in Maricopa County Arizona.

On October 19th, 2009, during the sentencing of Antonio Solis Loranzo, while his attorney, Joanne Cuccia, was addressing Judge Lisa Flores, Officer Adam Stoddard removed a letter from Attorney Cuccia’s briefcase while she was not looking. All this action was caught on courtroom video. The accused, Antonio Loranzo, told his lawyer “that officer just took something from your briefcase”. Immediately the lawyer addressed Judge Flores and the judge tried to justify the officer’s actions.

The CNN news anchor had several attorneys questioned on air as to whether Stoddard’s actions could ever be justified. Not one could offer any support as to when this action would be appropriate. Each attorney was amazed at how Judge Flores tried to justify the officer’s actions. The news anchor further commented that “if this type of activity occurs in a Maricopa County courtroom, in front of cameras, what goes on in that county behind closed doors”. He further went on to say that is probably why the Justice Department is investigating Justice in Maricopa County.

So why did I tell this story? Two reasons. First I want viewers to follow this story by checking the newspaper articles in the Arizona Republic or on CNN’s web site. The second reason is personal. Immediately after my trial I filed a motion with Judge Lee so the courtroom security videos would be preserved. Video cameras are located all over the courtroom. Those cameras would have showed the in-court behavior of Judge Lee, the prosecutor Rachel Phipps-Yonas, and the lead investigator, Detective Kathy VanGordon. But guess what Judge Lee’s ruling said? Read my June 26th, 2008 minute entry. It says: “This division does not operate audio or video equipment during court proceedings”. So how did CNN get the video clips from those in-court cameras if the Superior Court does not operate audio or video equipment during court proceedings?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

November 20th, 2009

C.D.D…C.R.-Cr 06-0448…Not here…There is only one you!!!

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

November 18, 2009
November 20th, 2009

FROM THE INSIDE
STEVE’S BLOG
WRITTEN BY: CARL DAVIS


Americans watched in shock and amazement as the news media, C.N.N. exposed a blatant constitutional violation transpiring in a Maricopa County Superior Courtroom. A constitutional violation so blatant that it prompted the C.N.N. correspondent to ask, “What is going on in Maricopa County Arizona”? He also asked, “If Maricopa County Superior Courts are openly committing and then trying to justify constitutional violations of this magnitude on camera, then what kind of violations and atrocities are being committed behind closed doors…”

But for the innocent men and women wrongfully convicted in a Maricopa County Superior Court, myself included, this was no surprise. Because we already know that this was business as usual in the Maricopa County Superior Court system of justice. I know first hand what blatant disregard the Maricopa County Superior Court has for the United States Constitution and the Federal Rules of Court as well as its own Arizona Rules of Court.

Since 2005 I have witnessed, in total amazement, Maricopa County Superior Court judges, prosecutors and various policing agencies within Maricopa County Arizona, completely “trash” the United States Constitution as well as U.S. and Arizona legislative laws in order to gain a conviction. I have seen first hand how Maricopa County Superior Court judges and Maricopa County prosecutors have taken well intentioned, but vaguely written legislative laws and manipulated, misinterpreted and misapplied them in such a manner as to render these laws completely unconstitutional.

I have been fighting to regain my freedom since my wrongful conviction in May 2006. A conviction that was only obtainable by the manipulation, misinterpretation and misapplication of U.S. And Arizona Legislative Law as well as constitutional violations committed by both, the trial judge, who was the trier of fact and the county prosecutors, who seriously have no interest in justice. Their only concern is to win and win at any and all cost..career and political advancement being their only agenda.

But finally, national attention is being cast upon the unconstitutional and improper practices that are an everyday occurrence in the Maricopa County Superior Court system.

Finally, could this be the final tally, the final atrocity that will prompt the U.S. Justice Department to launch a full investigation into the unconstitutional and sometimes corrupt practices that are common place in the Maricopa County Judicial and policing establishments.

Finally, maybe someone will put forth the effort and talk to those of us who have been falsely convicted in a Maricopa County Superior Court due to these types of constitutional violations and the blatant violations of U.S. As well as Arizona Rules of Court.

Finally, maybe people are really starting to listen, are really starting to see and are starting to realize that there is a lot of truth in what those of us who have been falsely convicted, even though our innocence has a factual as well as legal foundation, have been saying.

Finally…a little hope…even just a glimmer…from the inside.

C.D. Davis #66882
A.S.P.C. Tucson/Winchester
P.O. Box 24407
Tucson, Arizona 85734-4407

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

September 24, 2009
October 3rd, 2009


Just a few items to update everyone about. First, my Bar Complaint against Ms. Phipps-Yonas is finalized. To read the complain in its entirety, click here.

Secondly, this web site is getting legislative interest. In the future I may be able to disclose additional information, just not at this time. But I will inform everyone should anything further transpire.

Also, I received a recent letter from the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. This response was probably the result of my letter to Mr. Keith Stott requesting him to comment on-line as to why my judicial complaints, numbers 08-282 and 09-075, regarding Judge Raymond Lee and Timothy Ryan were so easily dismissed. Mr. Stott wrote on September 16th, “The Commission on Judicial Conduct has denied your motion for reconsideration of your complaint against judges Raymond Lee and Timothy Ryan. The Commission carefully reviewed the issues you raised and found nothing that would justify reopening the case. The case will remain closed.”

Apparently, Mr. Stott did not recognize the fact I was not requesting reconsideration, but rather justification.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

September 19, 2009
September 21st, 2009


I have been contacted by the Arizona Bar Association regarding the complaint which was filed against Ms. Rachel Phipps-Yonas, the Maricopa County attorney who also represented the state in my own case. The Arizona Bar has requested I file my own detailed complaint regarding the behavior of Ms. Phipps-Yonas during my own trial.

Although I believe the complaint will be pointless, I will file the paperwork. The Bar Association needs to know Ms. Phipps-Yonas does not follow the Criminal Rules of Procedure established by the state of Arizona, ignores the rights of the accused as protected by our constitution, and is more focused on obtaining a conviction than seeking justice. I will also file the paperwork so the citizens of Maricopa County know what type of individuals are employed by their County Attorney, Mr. Andrew Thomas.

So why do I feel my complaint is pointless? During trial when I sought sanctions against Ms. Phipps-Yonas for her misconduct, a biased judge, Raymond P. Lee refused to hold her responsible. The Bar’s opinion (probably) will be, if the judge did not sanction the county attorney, then there must not have been misconduct. I have seen this argument previously and would expect the Arizona Bar to follow their past behavior.

Once my complaint form is finalized I will post a copy of the document for everyone to view.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

September 11, 2009
September 11th, 2009

Recently I became aware of a preliminary Arizona Bar Investigation regarding the conduct of Ms. Rachel Phipps-Yonas, the prosecutor in my criminal case. As a result I mailed the following content to the individual investigating Ms. Phipps-Yonas. I will keep everyone informed should anything happen. However, unless the Arizona Bar is more diligent than the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, I don’t expect much to occur. But I believe the world needs to realize what type of individuals are involved in the criminal justice system. Some prosecutors seek victory over justice regardless of rules or constitutional protections.

Here is my letter:

Dear Ms. Tepper:

It has been brought to my attention there has been a preliminary investigation initiated regarding Maricopa County Prosecutor, Ms. Rachel Phipps-Yonas, file number 09-0828.

Ms. Phipps-Yonas was also the state’s prosecutor in my criminal case, CR-2005-011629 in Maricopa County. I believe I have a significant amount of information regarding the conduct of Ms. Phipps-Yonas during my own trial which I suspect may be of importance to your investigation.

Unlike the court granted mistrials caused by Ms. Phipps-Yonas during the trial of Mr. Dolezal and Mr. McCloud, my trial judge, Raymond P. Lee, would not grant a mistrial or order sanctions against Ms. Phipps-Yonas even though her behavior and tactics were equally as improper.

I would like to know if you would be willing to accept my evidence in support of investigation #09-0828 or if you would prefer myself to file an individual complaint regarding Ms. Phipps-Yonas on behalf of myself.

I look forward to your timely response.

Stephen Karban #234332
A.S.P.C. Eyman/Cook
P.O. Box 3200
Florence, Arizona 85232

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

September 9, 2009
September 11th, 2009

During a recent conversation regarding another individual’s case, I realized I am also unintentionally withholding information which could assist several Maricopa County individuals following this website.

Let me tell you all a story. While I was in the Maricopa County Jail prior to trial, there was an individual facing charges regarding files found on a computer. Prior to trial, the primary individual who was responsible for evidence collection was removed from the state’s witness list and replaced by another evidence technician from the same local police agency. (This happened to me regarding a Kaukauna Police Officer but this is for Maricopa residents).

With the switch in evidence technicians, I learned of a very vital “key” all Maricopa County criminal lawyers and defendants should know about. The Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office maintains what is referred to as the “Maricopa County Officer Integrity Database”.

Every police officer’s past actions which could affect their credibility while on the witness stand is maintained in a database by the County Attorney’s Office. As a result, the state knows when to “shift” one witness out for another. This may happen more often that I thought. The reason I am just now bringing this up is I was recently reviewing another individual’s case and I suspect a “shift” occurred to this inmate, based on the names involved in the investigation.

So here is my advice. Prior to trial, a motion should be filed to request all information contained in the Maricopa County Officer Integrity Database which could affect the credibility of any officer giving testimony. The state prosecutor should freely give any evidence which could help exonerate the accused. However, in Maricopa County, Arizona, that just is not going to happen.

~Steve

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

September 4, 2009
September 6th, 2009


As everyone is aware, I have been asked to post brief stories of other inmates in the Arizona Prison System who claim their innocence. I cannot judge the credibility of their claims. However, if I feel there is merit to what they say I am willing to post their story. Here is such a story of an individual named Ronald L. Murray. He wrote:

Justice in Arizona

This is to express explicit concern to the practices of the Arizona Judicial Branches to cover up facts that brought about a wrongful conviction. I was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault, among other felonies alleged to have occurred at the time of the assault. I attempted to correct and brought certain facts to the Arizona Judicial Branches attention requesting their assistance in the correction of a wrongful conviction by the agents of Justice in Cochise County. (Case Number CR 89-00193)

1. My direct Appeal-Trial Counsel/Appellant Counsel was given written notice to withdrawal as Appellant Counsel as I intended to present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This notice was confirmed but instead of withdrawing my attorney presented an opening brief and left the public defender’s office shortly there after.
2. No Rule 32, Post-Conviction Relief-The clerk of the Superior Court did not present all the records to the Court of Appeals on review ie: expert witness to testify, affidavit, reports on evidence to correct state’s testimony. The trial court vacated this Rule 32 (first) and ordered the filing of a Rule 32 only to preclude for reason of the vacated Rule 32.
3. A gynecologist affidavit-I presented to trial court a report from a gynecologist who simply stated “you cannot sexually assault a victim that has not had sex in 12 years, be physically violent and the victim was a diabetic where there was no physical trauma reported by the examining doctor in the sexual assault examination”.
4. DNA Testing-I requested DNA testing-prosecutor said the evidence is non-existent; Department of Public Safety Manager states- “if we did testing we keep the evidence. There is no evidence in our custody”. Cochise County Sherrif Custodian of Evidence states: “there is no evidence and no destruction order”. Chain of custody-the evidence alleged was checked out a few hours after the alleged sexual assault and never checked back in by sheriff’s official. The testimony of this alleged evidence still stands as true.

This is not all the facts just a few of the wrongful acts to uphold the conviction rate no matter how or whom it affects and to heck with the constitution.

Ronald L. Murray

This is a case where Mr. Murray’s record indicates there were materials which could have been DNA tested. However, after his conviction when he sought to have the evidence tested, the evidence could not be found. Apparently, there was trial testimony stating evidence was collected but now it cannot be found. Police records do not indicate anything had ever been destroyed.

Steve Karban

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

August 31, 2009
September 3rd, 2009


Arizona’s statute regarding molestation, S.R.S. 13-1410 is currently before the United State’s Supreme Court for review to determine if it is unconstitutional. With the law as it is currently written, the State of Arizona does not have to prove the touch was for sexual intent. Therefore, an individual could be throwing a fully clothed child into their swimming pool and if your hand touches the child’s genital area, over the clothing, you can be charged and convicted of child molestation. Think about this: you would be forced to register as a sex offender even though no sexual intent occurred, if you are convicted of child molestation here in Arizona.

In Arizona, it becomes the accused person’s responsibility to prove the touch was not sexually motivated. Whether a touch is sexual or not is irrelevant to the state’s current law. It is not an “element” of child molestation the state must prove. The state simply must prove a person touched the genital area of a child. You as the accused must prove it wasn’t sexual. I deliberately said the same thing two different times so there is no confusion.

In the current case before the Supreme Court, the opening brief analyzed several molestation statutes from various states. From my recollection about one-half of the states require the state to prove the touch was for sexual purposes, one half of the state require the defendant to prove the touch was non sexual.

The U.S. Supreme Court has required the State of Arizona to respond to the defendant’s opening brief, which the state did do, and I have read the State’s response. It is well written but not without error. My biggest concern is whether or not the defendant in this case did in fact exhaust his stat options before appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

To give individuals facing this charge in Arizona proper instruction you must file a pre trial “motion to dismiss due to the unconstitutionality of ARS 13-1410 and 13- 1407(E)” Essentially, you must argue making the defendant prove he was not motivated by sexual interest is unconstitutional. If the Superior Court judge rules against the accused, you should pursue a Special Action to the Arizona Court of Appeals. If you ultimately get convicted, you must raise this issue clearly in your direct appeal. Then you will have raised the issue well enough to seek a higher court’s review. I can’t post this individual’s arguments without providing case details. Have your lawyer or public defender do some investigation to find this case.

I have prepared a listing of cases which will give guidance in this matter. Also, have your attorney contact the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice regarding this issue. They have been providing a lot of support in this individual’s fight for justice.

Cases to review for dismissal motion:

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
Bryan v. State, 745 P.2d 905 (Wyo. 1987)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007)
Davis v. Barber, 853 F.2d 1418 (7th Cir. 1988)
Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002)
In Re Wentworth, 651 N.W. 2D 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002)
In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999)
McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986)
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. _ , 129 S. Ct. 711 (2009)
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)
People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y. 2D 288 (N.Y. 1976)
People v. Piper, 567 N.W. 2D 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)
People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916 (Colo. 2006)
People v. West, 724 P.2d 623 (Colo. 1986)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)
State v. Berry, 419 P.2d 337 (Ariz. 1966)
State v. Brooks, 586 P.2d 1270 (Ariz. 1978)
State v. Getz, 944 P.2d 503 (Ariz. 1997)
State v. Grell, 135 P.3d 696 (Ariz. 2006)
State v. Simpson, 173 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Trenary, 290 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1955)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)

I hope this information can assist in the fight for justice.

~Steve

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

August 27, 2009
August 29th, 2009


I want to give everyone some updates, and answer a few questions I recently have been asked. As requested, but not posted to this site, I have been looking for prison inmates to write a brief summary regarding their claims of innocence and their fight for justice here in Arizona. My personal requirements are that the individual must have gone to trial without any physical evidence to support the charges. This eliminates about 90% of the inmates I speak to. I do not seek stories where a technicality should have precluded evidence. I am looking for only individuals who vehemently denied the charges against them from the beginning. Some stories will be posted shortly.

Why the Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office is so frequently on this site I personally do not know. I also do not know why other Arizona county, city and government agencies follow so closely. Recently I learned of one Arizona government entity who had been to the site on a specific date and approximate time. When I viewed the connection report to determine their server connection name, during that specific block of four hours, Maricopa County had been on line twice. It does not concern me they follow my postings. I have nothing to hide and will not post anything which could result in getting anyone into legal trouble.

I do know my site is visited by others from Arizona not directly associated to my case, but is associated to the case of James Coghill. If you read back in some of my earlier blogs, Mr. Coghill had won a direct appeal here in Arizona. His conviction was overturned in part due to the admission of legal adult pornography into his trial regarding child pornography. Mr. Coghill, while awaiting re trial, had a web site formed by supporters which also exposed the underhandedness of those involved seeking to convict him. My web site, which is referenced on his web site, is possibly monitored simply due to our mutual fight for justice and our desire to expose those who seek convictions regardless of what the evidence establishes. Because Mr. Coghill was re tried and is now free and not in prison, possible there are those who watch each posting hoping to find something which could be used against Mr. Coghill.

The only way I would really know why certain people follow this site so diligently is if they would say so themselves in a direct posting. I know I have those who read and visit because of the hours we have worked together in the past while employed by the same company. I have those who follow because their names are involved on this site. My accusers are frequent visitors. It does not make me mad, it gives me the opportunity to remind my accusers I still love them. Jasmin’s comment was posted and I know many people watched for a reply to my response. Her reply never came or it would have been posted.

I have others who read because they know eventually their in court lies will be exposed. My trial transcripts are now complete and eventually their exact words will be read by the entire world. But as for me, I have nothing to hide. So all the frequent visits by law enforcement or state prosecutors isn’t any great worry. I provide only the truth on this site. Anything I have ever stated can be verified, the truth will always be revealed.

As for the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, Mr. Stott never responded to my formal request to post a comment to this site. In fact, Mr. Stott never acknowledged my written request.

There have been numerous questions asked regarding the status of the case which challenges Arizona’s Statute 13-1410 regarding child molestation. I will address the current status in my next posting in a few days. The person going through this with the courts does not want his information published on my web site and I agreed not to release his name. However, the attorney representing your friend or family member should be able to find this case even without me proving his name. There probably isn’t many Arizona court cases filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the last four months.

I also want to welcome any new visitors to this web site due to my recent nationally published advertisement. I hope you find the web site informative and I look forward to any questions or comments you may have.

~Steve

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries

Navigation

Calendar

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Blog

Categories

Archives
Search

Links

Feeds and Credits