As part of its ongoing public education effort, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division II, will hold oral arguments during its annual visit to University of Arizona Law on Feb. 20.
The judicial visit will include arguments in a special action/civil case and a criminal case.
When: Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2019 from 1:30 – 4 p.m. Check-in for Case 1 starts at 12:30, and check-in for Case 2 starts at 1:45. Please allow plenty of time for check-in, as there is no courtroom entry once court is in session.
Where: Ares Auditorium, Room 164, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 1201 E. Speedway Blvd.
Who may attend: Seating is available first to those who have registered here. Others are welcome to observe on a first-come, first-served basis as space is available. Note that food and beverages are not permitted past security.
Arguments will be heard in two cases:
CASE 1 (special action/civil) 1:30-2:20 p.m.
Claudia Duff v. Hon. Kenneth Lee
Duff v. Lee Case Materials
The first issue raised in this special action is whether the respondent judge abused his discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to proceed to arbitration instead of participating in Pima County's Fast Trial and Alternative Resolution Program (FASTAR), a pilot project adopted by Arizona Supreme Court, given that the plaintiff's complaint was filed after the administrative order "established" the upper limit "for arbitration claims authorized by A.R.S. § 12-133 . . . at one thousand dollars for Pima County for the duration of the pilot program," but before a new local rule that lowered the arbitration threshold became effective. The second issue is whether FASTAR violates § 12-133 or the Arizona Constitution and is therefore invalid.
CASE 2 (criminal) 2:30-3:20 p.m.
State of Arizona v. Brian Mitchell Lietzau
State v. Lietzau Case Materials
Following a mother's report of suspected inappropriate involvement with her thirteen-year-old daughter, Lietzau was arrested for unrelated probation violations, and an examination of his cell phone revealed evidence of sexual contacts with the daughter. Lietzau moved to suppress that evidence on grounds the search of his phone was unconstitutional, and the trial court agreed, precluding the use of text messages and photos at Lietzau's trial for sexual conduct with a minor. The state appealed, raising two issues: whether the trial court erred in finding the search unconstitutional, and whether the court abused its discretion by precluding the state's witness from testifying at the suppression hearing.
For those unable to attend, arguments can be viewed live at at https://law.arizona.edu/livestream.
This court visit is hosted by the College of Law's William H. Rehnquist Center.
Event questions may be directed to Bernadette Wilkinson, senior program coordinator, UA College of Law, email@example.com, 520-626-1629.