Government is always proud of its tyranny: Aug. 17, 2005 City Attorney Captures `Prosecutor of the Year' Award City Prosecutor Bill Solomon was recently awarded Arizona Misdemeanor Prosecutor of the Year by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council for his work that may have an impact on jury trials across the state. Solomon was nominated after he wrote the state's brief that addressed the state's concerns with inconsistent guidelines for misdemeanor jury trials. In October 2004, he argued the case before the Arizona Supreme Court. After nearly 40 years, the court reevaluated and modified its standard for jury trial eligibility, and the changes are expected to impact every misdemeanor prosecutor in Arizona. Since 1966, defense attorneys have attempted to extend the right to jury trial for misdemeanor offenses. Prosecutors have opposed these attempts and sought a simpler standard. A misdemeanor jury trial can be an expensive and a time-consuming case to prosecute before a jury. For example, a D.U.I. case can cost tax payers more than $3,000 to prosecute. Solomon grew up in Show Low and obtained his undergraduate degree from the University of Arizona. In 1999, he graduated cum laude from Arizona State University College of Law. He completed internships at the Arizona House of Representatives and the Scottsdale City Prosecutor's Office before joining the city of Phoenix Prosecutor's Office in 2000. He has worked in the office's trial and appeals bureaus and has argued cases before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court. Media Contacts: Sina Matthes 602-534-6648 Pager 602-201-4383 I don't know why these criminal defense attorneys would continue to ask for a jury trial for their client? Perhaps they are confused by the Arizona Constitution's Article 2: Dec;aration of Rights. Section 23. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Juries in criminal cases in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons. In all criminal cases the unanimous consent of the jurors shall be necessary to render a verdict. In all other cases, the number of jurors, not less than six, and the number required to render a verdict, shall be specified by law. Section 24. In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, and the right to appeal in all cases; and in no instance shall any accused person before final judgment be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed. Or, perhaps they bothered to read: Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. And were confused by that archaic document's: Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Of course, these worthless bits of parchment were over-ruled by the Arizona Supreme Court, in determining that as long as the defendant faced no more than 179 days incarceration, the above need not apply. Too inconvenient, and as our award winning city prosecutor has pointed out ... too expensive.