Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees


Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees book. Happy reading Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Pocket Guide.


Table of Contents

Article 14 Procedures on Issue of Insanity of Defendant Detention of defendant during insanity; restoration to sanity Expenses of maintenance of insane defendant as county charge Examination of defendant pleading not guilty by reason of insanity; privilege inapplicability; reports Commitment; hearing; jurisdiction; definition. Article 16 Costs, Fees, and Disposition of Fines and Forfeitures Costs of criminal action on removal before trial Costs of transmittal of records of prosecution to another county upon discovery that trial court is without jurisdiction Counsel assigned in criminal proceeding or insanity hearings; investigators and expert witnesses; compensation Fees for expert witnesses in sanity hearing; fees of physician examining defendant alleging pregnancy as cause for not pronouncing sentence.

Article 17 Insanity or Pregnancy of Person Under Death Sentence Competency to be executed; definition Determining competency Recovery of competency Untimely or successive motions Procedure upon discovery that prisoner under death sentence may be pregnant; examination Proceedings subsequent to examination for pregnancy. Article 18 Appeals Right of appeal Appeal by state Appeal by defendant Expense of record or transcript upon appeal by indigent as county charge Power of supreme court on appeal from judgment of conviction Power of supreme court to correct and reduce sentence upon appeal by defendant Power of supreme court on appeal by state Failure of appellant to prosecute appeal; effect Divestiture of jurisdiction of supreme court after remission of minute entry and decision; exception Fee of counsel assigned in criminal proceeding or insanity hearing on appeal or in postconviction relief proceedings; reimbursement Appellate proceedings; request for extension; victim notification.

Article 19 Entry of Clearance on Records Entry on records; stipulation; court order. Article 20 Competency and Privileges Competency of witness Anti-marital fact privilege; other privileged communications Competency of female concerned in certain offenses; effect of marriage to accused Order compelling person to testify or produce evidence; immunity from use of such evidence; contempt Prohibition on psychological or psychiatric examination to determine credibility Privileged communication; sex offender treatment; exception.

Article 21 Attendance of Witnesses Subpoena; issuance; duty of clerk Service of subpoena Refusal to attend, be sworn or testify as contempt; civil liability Attendance of witness; liability for non-attendance Removal of prisoner to attend as witness; procedure; duty of sheriff Allowance of expenses of out of county or indigent witness. Article 22 Material Witnesses Undertaking by witnesses When further security may be required Procedure when witness does not give security Undertaking by witnesses in other courts Release or detention of material witness; depositions.

Arizona Legal Ethics

Article 23 Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings Definitions Summoning witness in this state to testify in another state Witness from another state summoned to testify in this state Exemption from arrest and service of process Uniformity of interpretation Short title. Article 24 Deposition of Witness Within the State Witness for defendant Grounds for examination; application Order for examination; notice; proof of service Attendance of witness; testimony; transmittal Use of deposition at trial; objection to testimony.

Article 25 Deposition of Witness Without the State Witness for defendant; grounds; application; issuance of commission; stay of trial Interrogatories and cross-interrogatories; notice; service; duty of court; execution of commission Duty of commissioner in executing commission; attachment of section to commission Receipt and filing of commission; inspection Use of deposition at trial; objection to testimony Delivery of commission by agent; inability of agent to deliver. Article 27 Crime Victim Accounts Definitions Void contracts; crime victim accounts; establishment; notice to victims; exceptions; civil liability; definition.

Article 28 Retention and Preservation of Biological Evidence Preservation of biological evidence; retention period; definitions. June 25, ; Acts , No. See Acts , No. See Louisiana Revised Statutes Previous section. Next section. Chapter 7-A Contents. The special rules applicable to movement of lawyers into, and away from, government service are justified by the government's need to be able to recruit and retain qualified personnel:.

On the other hand, the rules governing lawyers presently or formerly employed by a government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of employment to and from the government. The government has a legitimate need to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. The provisions for screening and waiver in paragraph b are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from imposing too severe a deterrent against entering public service.

Comment, AZ-ER 1. Notwithstanding that stated purpose, these rules and restrictions also seem to be applied when a lawyer moves from a prosecuting governmental agency to a public defender's office, even though both may be publicly funded. Security General Life Insurance Company v. To support a disqualification, however, the Rule requires a showing of both "substantial" and "personal" participation in the matter which is the subject of the action by the lawyer while in public service, and that showing was not satisfied by the mere signing of orders prepared by others.

The rules that govern the limitations upon the ability of a lawyer who leaves government service to enter private practice to accept engagements for clients whose interests are adverse to state agencies the lawyer represented while with the government were summarized by the Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct "the Committee" in Arizona Ethics Opinion No. The issue is controlled by AZ-ER 1.

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 - Public Officers And Employees

The first limitation, imposed by AZ-ER 1. This serves the purpose of preventing a lawyer from exploiting public service for the advantage of a private client. This conflict may be waived by the appropriate official of the agency involved and, even if it is not, the lawyer's firm may avoid disqualification by screening the lawyer from participation in it and any share of the fees earned from it. Second, the attorney may not possess any confidential government information, as that term is defined in AZ-ER 1. This conflict cannot be waived, but imputation of it to other members of the lawyer's firm can be avoided through screening.

Finally, under what is now AZ-ER 1. If this limitation is not waived by the agency through such informed consent, it will be imputed to other lawyers in the former government lawyer's firm. In Arizona Ethics Opinion No.

Recommended For You

On the other hand, in Arizona Ethics Opinion No. Interestingly, in that same Opinion, the Committee also concluded that other lawyers in the lawyer's private firm were also precluded from handling the matter. These rules and restrictions are applicable even if the private attorney's former government service was not in a capacity of an attorney, or occurred before the individual was admitted to practice. Thus, in Arizona Ethics Opinion No. In that same Opinion, however, the Committee ruled that an attorney who had been a clerk in the civil division of a County Attorney's Office prior to admission to the bar should decline the representation of clients in cases seeking to set aside decisions of that County's Board of Adjustment, where the cases involved facts that the attorney had learned during the clerkship.

The language of AZ-ER 1. Interestingly, in that same Opinion, the Committee also concluded that other lawyers in the lawyer's private firm were also precluded from handling the matter, and again did not discuss the screening alternative. The Committee went on to point out that the attorney's disqualification was imputed to other members of the attorney's firm, and could not be waived or consented to by either the utility or the Commission.

Lieutenant Duarte resigns after investigation

Finally, in Arizona Ethics Opinion No. Rule ER 1. There are no Arizona authorities that address specifically issues arising under this particular provision. The Comment to the Rule notes that "unfair advantage could accrue to the private client by reason of access to confidential government information about the client's adversary obtainable only through the lawyer's government service.

The term "confidential government information" is defined, in AZ-ER 1. There are no Arizona authorities that elaborate upon this definition as set forth in the Rule. In a wholly unrelated context, the Arizona Supreme Court has observed that: "[I]nformation known to governmental employees is not necessarily secret or confidential In Arizona, however, there are a number of statutes that provide that information provided to various governmental agencies, either upon the agency's request or pursuant to the regulatory mandates of the statute itself, are to remain "confidential.

Under AZ-ER 1. A similar rule has also been applied by the Arizona authorities where a lawyer moves between two governmental offices which regularly represent clients whose interests conflict, e.


  • The Liver as a Lymphoid Organ (Annual Review of Immunology Book 27).
  • Most Popular City Names: City Names, Origins & Meanings (States by the Numbers Book 51);
  • Legal Corner!
  • NRS: CHAPTER - GENERAL PROVISIONS.
  • Agencies by Title.

The provisions for screening and waiver are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from imposing too severe a deterrent against entering public service. In In re Ockrassa, Ariz. The Committee pointed out, however, that the attorney had a duty to advise other prosecutors in the office of the prior representation in the event the office decides to charge the former client with a crime, and the infectious disqualification principle would not require the hiring of a special prosecutor to handle the matter.


  • Related Stories.
  • Caught Red Starred?
  • Health Reform News for State Employee Plans.
  • Arizona State Parks Board;
  • Il revient ! Episode 4 - La faute à Voltaire (French Edition)?

A separate issue, and one which the Arizona authorities have handled differently in the context of government agencies than for movement between private firms, is whether the personal disqualification of an individual prosecutor or public defender should be imputed to, and operate to disqualify, the entire office in which the disqualified attorney is employed. The issue of whether an entire office should be disqualified because of an "appearance of impropriety" was first addressed in State v. Latique, Ariz.


  • You are being redirected!
  • Navigation menu.
  • End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library.
  • Schweden und die Kalmarer Union - von ihren Anfängen bis 1440 (German Edition).

In that case, the Court approved the disqualification of the entire Maricopa County Attorney's Office because a deputy public defender who had acted as the defendant's co-counsel had accepted a position as the chief deputy county attorney while the prosecution of the defendant was still pending, even though the individual involved took no part in the prosecution. The Court held in part that the "office would have to divorce itself from the prosecution.

At Although the Model Rules of Professional Conduct did not retain the prohibition on the appearance of impropriety contained in Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that the "appearance of impropriety" standard survives as part of any analysis of a possible conflict of interest.

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees

Related Arizona Revised Statutes Title 38 2013: Public Officers and Employees



Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved