Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Judicial System
It is impossible to discuss the corruption and misconduct that is riddled throughout the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office without also addressing its existence within the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) and within the Judicial system itself. As can be heard in the prosecutor’s interview with MCSO’s Professional Standards Bureau, they “are on the same team.” Once again we are faced with this illusion of justice and find that regardless of what the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence outline as certain unalienable rights for its citizens, these are merely suggestions when called into question within the Maricopa County Superior Court system. Deep rooted connections, politics, and biases are what make up this system’s shaky foundation. The standard of “innocent until proven guilty” is a complete fallacy as DJ was presumed guilty from the beginning (why else bring SWAT to someone’s house and point guns at even his children just based off of what one person lied about?), despite never having been in trouble with the law before. The ugly truth in this, is that this system only gets worse the longer the misconduct is allowed to go on, and our family is not the only family they have done this to. Most citizens would rather go the route of “ignorance is bliss” and have been conditioned to believe that these people in the justice system are there to be impartial, unbiased, and make sure the “bad people” are locked up. We need to wake up and realize that while this country may have been founded on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” that is no longer the objective. The worst part is that these people are the ones who make the rules rather than uphold the ones they swore to protect. There is zero accountability for them, and they know they have leverage over you, as the outcome for the rest of your life rests in their corrupt hands.
​
We never thought we’d have to fight so hard to prove our innocence in a system where we are already supposed to be presumed as innocent; however, every step of the way, my family has faced judgment, unfair bias, ridicule, harassment, and untruthfulness.
​
Below is a timeline of various events and encounters we faced within MCAO and the Maricopa County Superior Court system, and the unjust treatment that went along with them.
​
​
August 3, 2017
DJ has his initial appearance in front of a judge with no attorney present, as no one was assigned for him, and MCSO refused to let him contact one unless he already knew the attorney’s phone number from memory. Detective Steve Horath gave DJ his own cell phone to contact his mother, but quickly ripped it out of DJ’s hand before he could even ask her about contacting an attorney. In every high profile case that is in the media, there can be seen an attorney, whether publicly assigned or privately retained, standing next to the defendant at his or her initial appearance. DJ did not even have a Public Defender present to help guide or represent him.
​
Additionally, DJ’s preliminary hearing was vacated and the prosecutor did not disclose when she would be addressing the Grand Jury. DJ later found out from the assigned Public Defender (that he did not even meet until over a month later), that the attorney was never apprised of when the Grand Jury Indictment was scheduled for, so as to be present for the proceedings.
Prior to DJ’s charges being presented to the Grand Jury, there were only 4 charges against him (one of which was dismissed by the Grand Jury). The prosecutor added 9 more charges, which violated DJ’s Fifth Amendment right of protection from double jeopardy. According to the United States Constitution, the double jeopardy clause within the Fifth Amendment states that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (see Brown vs. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977) and Littrell vs. State, 2007 Tex.App. 5988). DJ not only had 9 counts of Aggravated Assault against the same person, but his other charges of threatening/intimidation, disorderly conduct, and kidnapping were all encompassing of the same offense (see Hall vs. State 225 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Additionally, there were no injuries to Jacob Rector, the “victim” that were documented by a medical examiner. Jacob also stated in his first interview with Detective Jerry Broadwater (#S1828) that he was not hurt and was not in any need of medical attention. Similarly, Jacob’s mother, who placed the call to MCSO, stated that Jacob did not need medical attention.
August 11, 2017
​
During the Grand Jury Indictment on August 11, 2017, prosecutor Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert, tainted the jury members in that she not only called attention to the fact that DJ’s incident had been aired on television through the media, but she then proceeded to divulge a non-factual, unproven assumption of events about the incident that the media portrayed. Therefore, if there were jury members that had not seen the story air on television, they were all made aware of what the media’s inaccurate narrative was.
December 15, 2017
During a Settlement Conference that was held in a private room with DJ’s attorney Robert Wooten, prosecutor Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert, DJ, and Sarah (assigned Judge Warren Granville was not present), Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert put her arms around DJ and gave him a hug despite his requests for her not to do so; however, she insisted that she wanted to, and she disclosed that she did not believe everything the primary victim, Jacob, had said. By definition, assault is any unwanted touch, so by those standards, the prosecutor herself could have been charged with assault for hugging DJ. She also stated that she did not believe DJ deserved any prison time, but that she was not the one making the decisions. During this conference, DJ informed Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert that Jacob’s cell phone was never taken into evidence by MCSO. Upon hearing this information Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert stated, “If that’s true, that is extremely detrimental to my case. Come hell or high water, if I have to subpoena him to get his phone, I will.” This was a complete lie as Jacob was never forced to turn over his cell phone, nor was he ever even subpoenaed for it.
It is important to note that the only reason DJ agreed to a Settlement Conference is because his attorney told him that the prosecutor had the power to dismiss all of the charges; therefore, if he attended the conference and she heard the truth about what happened from DJ, then all of the charges could be dismissed. This was a lie, for even though the prosecutor told DJ that he “did not deserve what was happening to [him],” she said that it was “out of [her] hands,” and her supervisor was the one making all of the decisions. Her supervisor was Joshua Clark who has recently been in the news for his unprofessionalism in the courtroom (see section on Todd Whittard on the “Officer Misconduct” page).
January 17, 2018
This was the first of two interviews that was conducted between Sarah, prosecutor Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert, MCSO Detective Albert Bouchard (#S1794), and MCSO Detective Tyler Thompson (#S1681). Sarah was not made aware that Detective Thompson would be present, so prior to the interview Sarah asked Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert if it was safe to discuss the multiple instances of misconduct and threats among MCSO, and the familial ties that existed between MCSO Lieutenant Shawn Braaten and Jacob Rector, since Detective Thompson was on scene at her house the day of DJ’s arrest. Within the confines of the women’s restroom, Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert recommended that Sarah should not talk about any of the corruption pertaining to MCSO, and then told Sarah privately after the interview that she and Sarah could schedule another time to privately discuss the matter because Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert “definitely [felt] like there [was] some funky business going on.”
It is important to note that after the first interview Detective Bouchard privately told Sarah that he thought his batteries had run out in his recorder, and that he was not sure how much of the interview had actually recorded. Sarah told this to Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert at the next court hearing on January 30, 2018, and she told Sarah that it was “not a big deal” and “not everyone checks their batteries all of the time.” Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert then refused to discuss the corruption/“funky business” privately with Sarah, but instead scheduled a second interview with Sarah and MCSO the following month (February 28, 2018), which is the interview that was later deleted by Detective Bouchard.
January 19, 2018
A second Settlement Conference is conducted between the defense and MCAO, as the prosecutor told DJ and his attorney after the first Settlement Conference that she had to go to her boss to discuss the case (and the probability of dismissing the charges) further. After the conference, Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert walked out of courthouse with just DJ and Sarah (DJ’s attorney was not present), and she wanted them to know that she “hope[d] [they didn’t] think [she was] a cold-hearted bitch.” She also asked DJ for his advice on how best to care for her youngest son who was ill at the time since DJ had medical knowledge having worked as a Phoenix Firefighter and EMT. This is extremely unprofessional and unethical as she is not supposed to have any ex-parte communication with DJ without his attorney present.
February 28, 2018
Second interview that Sarah had with the prosecutor Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert and MCSO, only this time the officers present were Detective Bouchard and Detective Chris Brown (#S2002). Although Sarah was extremely uncomfortable discussing all of the corruption and bias that existed because of Jacob’s familial connection with MCSO Lieutenant (at the time) Shawn Braaten, Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert had not upheld her commitment to privately discuss it with Sarah; therefore, Sarah took this opportunity to divulge all of the misconduct and connections that existed. Detective Brown admitted to having personally asked Braaten if he wanted to be involved in the case (a huge no-no, and he should never have even been asked). Bear in mind that at this time, not only was Braaten the uncle of Jacob, but he was working in MCSO’s Professional Standards Bureau where he was in charge of reviewing all of the investigations. Detective Brown also touted that officers are permitted to lie about anything, and then relished in telling a story about how under the previous Sheriff’s regime (Joe Arpaio), they would trick hispanics into thinking they had won a TV, and then once they came down to “claim their prize”, they would arrest and deport them.
It was also during this interview that Detective Brown asked Sarah for her iTunes password for her cell phone that MCSO had taken into evidence. Since Sarah did not trust these officers at all, she declined to give it to them. Detective Brown then told Sarah that they had already extracted all of the data off of her phone, but that it was encrypted. He stated that this was why they needed the iTunes password: in order to read it. Sarah mentioned that she had recently been in contact with Apple and they told her that her iCloud account had been completely wiped. In fact, Apple confirmed that both Sarah and DJ's iCloud accounts had been wiped the same day they had a court hearing, while they were in court ( Detective Brown’s response to this was that the iCloud account automatically got wiped when MCSO did their data extraction (which is a lie). Sarah then asked Detective Brown if he had a warrant to extract the data off of her phone, as she knew that the warrant to take her physical phone into evidence did not cover taking the data off of it. Detective Brown said that there was a warrant, and that he was the one who had authored it and submitted it. Sarah immediately asked the prosecutor if she had the warrant, to which the prosecutor tried to find it, but could not. Despite Sarah’s multiple attempts to get a copy of the warrant, as she was never provided one, no warrant could be found for over a year. Once one finally surfaced (SW#2017-008153) it not only had the incorrect date of 2014 on it, but it was a “copy and paste” statement from another warrant which was used in another local case (CR2014-103633, see section on Chris Hechavarria under “Officer Misconduct” page). The description of Sarah’s iPhone was not accurate, and rather it described the iPhone for an employee in the other local case. Additionally, after this warrant surfaced and was called into question, Detective Bouchard authored a second warrant for Sarah’s iPhone (SW#2018-007289) presumably to try to cover up their “mistakes” on the first one. If we go off of MCSO’s logic that they authored a completely original and valid warrant, even though no one could find it for over a year, then why the need to author a second one?
As is evident, a plethora of new information was presented by Sarah during this second interview; however, none of it painted MCSO in a favorable light. When DJ’s attorney requested the interview from the prosecutor, he was told that Detective Bouchard had deleted it. Email and supplemental documentation dictates that Detective Bouchard decided to delete the interview because he did not feel that any new information had been presented. It is important to note that Detective Bouchard later lied about how the interview was deleted. In an interview that Detective Bouchard had with the prosecutor Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert and DJ's defense attorney on June 7, 2018, Detective Bouchard disclosed “that one I deleted before I saved it, inadvertently.” He also goes on to say that “everything [from the interview] is included in [his] supplement,” which gives no mention of him not preserving it. In State v. Youngblood, 164 Ariz. 61, 790 P.2d 759 (App. 1989) the defendant raised a claim under the Arizona due process clause that his due process rights were violated due to bad faith on the part of the police and failure to preserve potentially useful evidence. As a result, the court of appeals held that Arizona due process was violated, reversed his convictions, and dismissed all charges against him.
​
Shortly after this interview was conducted with Detective Bouchard, an internal investigation (IA2018-0457) was started with MCSO’s Professional Standards Bureau, however, the complainant was kept anonymous. This severely impeded progress in DJ’s case, as the prosecution refused to go to trial until they received the results of this internal investigation, which MCSO refused to turn over despite countless requests for them to do so. Additionally, Judge Jeanne Garcia refused to force MCSO to complete and turn over the results of the investigation. The deletion of this interview was not only grounds for a Willits Instruction, but it also violated DJ’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial as DJ was forced to waive his time in court. This was despite his requests to no longer waive his time and instead push forward to trial (see Minute Entry from 1/16/20). A Willits jury instruction is sometimes imposed as a sanction when evidence is destroyed. In State v. Willits, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court's instruction to the jury that if it found that the state lost, destroyed, or did not preserve evidence that might aid the defendant and the state's explanation is inadequate, the jury could draw an inference that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the state. 96 Ariz. 184, 393 P.2d 274 (1964).
These shenanigans went on for over TWO YEARS when the investigation was finally completed, and it was revealed that the prosecutor herself, Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert was labeled as the official complainant. It is important to note that although Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert was labeled as the complainant, the real catalyst to this investigation was DJ’s defense attorney. During an interview in July 2018 with DJ's attorney, Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert, and Detective Jerry Broadwater (#S1828), DJ's attorney addresses the fact that since the Lee case began, Detective Broadwater was removed as case agent and promoted to work with Jacob’s uncle, Shawn Braaten, at MCSO’s PSB, and as such, his job was to enforce adherence among MCSO employees to policy. DJ's attorney posed the question to Detective Broadwater that if Detective Broadwater had found out that one of his detectives had deleted evidence, shouldn’t that misconduct be investigated as a policy violation? DJ's attorney led Detective Broadwater to answer the rhetorical question with an affirmative response (see audio recording of interview below). Detective Broadwater was now in a position to uphold MCSO policy, however, Detective Bouchard was not one of his direct reports, so Detective Broadwater then put it on Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert to file the complaint since she was witness to the interview that Detective Bouchard later deleted. As if that were not shocking enough (since she knew all along that she was the one who started the internal investigation, thus purposefully prolonging trial), she can also be heard on video during her interview with MCSO’s PSB stating that MCSO and MCAO are “on the same team” and they needed to work together so that this case would not go to trial. Her fear was that since Detective Bouchard intentionally deleted the interview, it was grounds for a Willits instruction, and could lead to a not guilty verdict in trial, therefore, they needed to try to prolong and prevent trial.
​
​
​
Additionally, Detective Bouchard lied about his reasons for deleting the interview. In Detective Bouchard’s interview with DJ's attorney and Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert, he stated that he “inadvertently deleted it”; however, in his interview with PSB, Detective Bouchard said he purposely deleted it. As if this system were not corrupt enough, in the video of Detective Bouchard’s interview with PSB, you can hear the investigators (Sgt. Timothy Carey and Sgt. Rank) coaching Detective Bouchard to say that it was “an accident.” When Detective Bouchard reiterates that it was not an accident, but rather done on purpose, the investigators then try to manipulate his words and ask him when he said initially that he deleted it “inadvertently,” could that have actually meant something else, like he did it intentionally? (See attached videos on "DJ's Story" page)
​
To top it all off, PSB taking over two years to complete an investigation for one deleted interview, violates MCSO’s own policies for internal investigations (MCSO Policy GH-2) as far as the timeline for completing administrative investigations. It is important to note as well, that when Sarah went to PSB in 2019 to file a complaint against multiple officers for their misconduct, bias, and nepotism due to Jacob’s familial connection to Shawn Braaten, Sarah’s interview was conducted with Sgt. Carey who also investigated Detective Bouchard for deleting Sarah’s interview. This was revealed to Sarah by Sgt. Carey himself, to which Sarah questioned why she was never interviewed by PSB for it? Sgt. Carey’s response was that since Sarah “did not witness Detective Bouchard physically delete the interview,” then there was no need to interview her even though she was the only other person present during the deleted interview that they chose not to interview for the investigation (Detective Brown was interviewed, and the prosecutor Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert was interviewed during her initial complaint, yet she is never asked what was actually said in the interview). Furthermore, Detective Bouchard was never removed as the case agent/lead detective for the Lee case while he was under internal investigation, even though the outcome resulted in an 8 hour suspension for Detective Bouchard and a spot on the infamous Brady List for officer misconduct (see section for Bouchard on “Officer Misconduct” page). Coincidentally, right after the findings of this investigation were made public in August 2020, prosecutor Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert was taken off the case (after 3 years), and she was replaced by Ms. Frankie Grimsman.
​
March 27, 2018
This was the date of the hearing immediately following the deletion of Sarah’s interview. After the hearing, prosecutor Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert approached Sarah, DJ and DJ’s attorney at the time, Robert Wooten, in the court lobby. Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert informed Sarah that she would no longer speak with Sarah without DJ’s attorney present, and that she felt like DJ had two defense attorneys, implying that Sarah was one of them. Bear in mind that this is right after Sarah revealed all of MCSO’s misconduct, the familial connections with Jacob and Shawn Braaten, and after Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert had already spoken with Sarah privately multiple times including over the phone, in the elevator, in the restroom, and outside of court without having any issues with it previously.
​
OCTOBER 23, 2018
​
Another court hearing in which DJ's defense attorney and prosecutor Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert request a continuance due to MCSO's internal investigation of Detective Albert Bouchard still not being completed. Publicly requested court transcripts reveal that DJ's attorney requested another settlement conference from the judge (David Cunanan) as a strategy to try to delay DJ from going to trial. It is important to note that during the hearing itself, the judge had "white noise" playing when the attorney's approached the bench, so that no one in the courtroom could hear their conversation; however, the conversation was audible only through the publicly requested copy. DJ's attorney can be heard asking the judge to assign the settlement conference to a judge who will "blow [DJ] out of the water" with respect to what he feels is "relevant information." The defense attorney can also be heard asking the judge to make it sound like it is an order coming from the judge, just so if DJ expressed opposition to the settlement conference, then the attorney could blame it on the judge as a court order, and not know that it was actually because his attorney had requested it (see video below). *It is important to note that after this hearing, and prior to this settlement conference, DJ's attorney told DJ that he was not allowed to speak to the prosecutor at the settlement conference without first going through him. The attorney went so far as to threaten DJ that he would "snap his f-ing arm off" if he spoke to the prosecutor (listen to audio below); however, during the actual settlement conference, DJ's attorney told DJ in front of the prosecutor and the judge that he was free to say whatever he wanted to. When DJ heeded his attorney's threats and did not ask any questions during the settlement conference, DJ's attorney got mad at him for not asking questions.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
August 14, 2019
​
Sarah finds out she is assigned an attorney at the request of both the prosecutor, Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert and defense attorney Jason Lamm. This attorney, Jeremy Bogaart, sent Sarah an email stating that although neither side was planning on calling Sarah as a witness, he was put in place to explain to Sarah “how things [could] move forward so [she didn’t] get into any trouble.” When Sarah met Jeremy for the first time at the next court hearing on August 27, 2019, Jeremy divulged to Sarah that his purpose was “to shut [Sarah] up.” He additionally tried to keep Sarah out of the courtroom by talking to her in the lobby after the hearing had already started. It wasn’t until Sarah insisted that they go in that he stopped talking. Please be cognizant of the malicious intentions of this strategy imposed by both the prosecution and the defense in doing this. Up until this point, Sarah had never played the part that the prosecution was hoping she would when they intentionally labeled her a victim in the case. The prosecution was hoping to not only alienate and separate Sarah from DJ, but they were hoping that she would go along with their lies in order to get a conviction for DJ. When this did not happen, they assigned her Victim Advocates that were blatantly biased towards the other “victim” Jacob, refused to show up at court hearings, and were constantly replaced with other advocates. Sarah would still exercise her right as a labeled victim to address the court during hearings in an effort to explain the malfeasance that existed within both MCSO and MCAO. One judge, David Cunanan, yelled at Sarah (remember, still labeled a victim at this point) and told her to be quiet. Another judge, Jeanne Garcia, refused to allow Sarah to address the court because her Victim Advocate was not present, and later because her attorney, Jeremy Bogaart, refused to show up. This was done intentionally so that Sarah could not talk. As stated above, Jeremy Bogaart was assigned to “shut Sarah up,” and to try to scare her into believing that if she continued to keep speaking up in court, that she also may be charged in the case.
​
August 27, 2019
Judge Jeanne Garcia is rotated in and takes over for Judge David Cunanan. Sarah takes this opportunity to exercise her right to address the court and explains to the judge how there has been a constant turn over in victim advocates and how they are not showing up in court. The prosecutor was then reprimanded by Judge Garcia when she argued with the judge about Sarah not being the “primary victim,” to which the judge scolded her for not adhering to victim’s rights regardless if deemed primary or not.
November 7, 2019
Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert submitted a response to DJ’s motion to modify his release conditions. Up until this point DJ was still required to check in each month with bail bonds and with pretrial services. This was in addition to DJ being required to wear an ankle monitor for the first six months after he was released from jail, and having to post bail, which was set at a whopping $25,000. This most recent motion was submitted by DJ’s attorney, Jason Lamm, to release him on his own recognizance. Within her response to this motion, Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert wrote several blatant fabrications which include her saying that Sarah “was afraid for what would happen to the victim,” and that DJ admitted “he handcuffed the victim and hit him in the process, although he provided the State with additional explanations for why he did this.” Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert mentions that DJ said this “at court,” yet there is no proof, timeframe reference, or witnesses to corroborate these statements. Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert was asserting non-factual statements, which can only be taken as hearsay statements. In fact, these lies align with and reinforce Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert’s philosophy (as she mentions in her own literature) that “it is not wether you win or lose, it is how you play the game.” See article below:
​
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=cwlr
December 12, 2019
Judge Jeanne Garcia makes a ruling on and denies the defense’s motion to modify DJ’s release conditions so that he may be released on his own recognizance. Judge Garcia includes in her ruling that because Sarah, as a victim, did not submit a response to this motion, then she only went off of Jacob’s last known statement from 2017 that he was fearful, so she denied the motion. The truth about what happened is Sarah submitted an email response to BOTH her assigned attorney Jeremy Bogaart, and her assigned victim advocate at the time, April Siegel, stating that she had no objection to DJ being released on his own recognizance. Once Sarah saw the prosecutor’s response and read all of her lies that she used as justification to oppose the motion, Sarah contacted Jeremy Bogaart and told him how these were blatant lies and that she wanted Jeremy to submit something in writing to the court explaining this. Jeremy told Sarah that this “was not his function” and that she would have an opportunity to address the court at the next hearing so the judge could hear her concerns prior to ruling on the motion; however, the judge decided to rule on the motion prior to the next court hearing, so Sarah’s concerns and statement were never conveyed. The judge cited that because she did not hear a statement from Sarah, that factored into her decision to deny the motion. Sarah questioned Jeremy as to why if “his function” was to not submit a statement to the court on Sarah’s behalf (after all, he was her attorney), then why didn’t he at least advise her that she could have submitted her own statement in writing to the court? This was completely ignored despite several attempts to reach Jeremy, and less than one week later on December 17, 2019, Jeremy sent Sarah an email informing her that he and his supervisor “agreed that [she] should probably have someone else representing [her].” Sarah inquired as to why Jeremy and his supervisor felt this way, but she was completely ignored and never received a response.
January 16, 2020
This was the next court hearing after Judge Garcia denied DJ’s motion to modify his release conditions. Although Jeremy Bogaart told Sarah he was no longer assigned as her attorney, the court still recognized Jeremy as Sarah’s attorney, and as such Judge Garcia denied Sarah the right to address the court about her concerns regarding the prosecutor’s response to the motion and the blatant lies that were included in the response. Judge Garcia stated that because Sarah’s attorney, Jeremy, was not present at the court hearing, then she would not allow Sarah to speak. Whoever was supposed to be “reassigned” to Sarah within this court appointed Office of Legal Defenders, did not show up either. Although Sarah emailed Jeremy after court to try to figure out what happened and who was supposed to be assigned to be her counsel going forward, she was once again ignored and never received a response.
​
January 23, 2020
Sarah receives a phone call from attorney Sheena Chiang, who works in the same office as Jeremey Bogaart (Office of the Legal Defender, which is part of the Maricopa County Superior court system), and says that she has been assigned as Sarah’s attorney. Sarah confronted her about why she did not show up at the last court hearing on January 16, 2020, so that Sarah could address the court, and all Sheena could say was that it was a “miscommunication.” Less than 2 weeks later, Sheena sends Sarah an email on February 5, 2020, stating that she is leaving the Office of the Legal Defender and that her (and Jeremy’s) supervisor, Rick Miller, is taking over as Sarah’s attorney.
February 13, 2020
Judge Jeanne Garcia allows DJ’s attorney, Jason Lamm, to withdraw as counsel and to seal the reason for his withdrawal, which means no one, including DJ, can know why he chose to withdraw. Keep in mind that Mr. Lamm had been DJ’s attorney for 2 years, knew the most about the case, and yet had refused to meet with DJ to discuss the case for over a year. DJ had requested to meet with him multiple times to discuss the case and to prepare for trial. At the hearing prior to his withdrawal on January 15, 2020, Mr. Lamm had submitted a motion to continue against DJ’s wishes. This forced DJ to have to waive his time, once again, as they were still waiting on the results from MCSO’s internal investigation for Detective Bouchard deleting evidence, which no one, including the judge, was forcing MCSO to complete. It is important to note that Mr. Lamm is friends with MCSO Sheriff Paul Penzone (there are pictures of them and their wives together at gala events), and after DJ’s first meeting with Mr. Lamm, Mr. Lamm’s secretary told DJ, “You better bet that Penzone is going to be hearing about this tonight.”
February 18, 2020
Sarah received a phone call from Rick Miller’s secretary with the Office of the Legal Defender to schedule an in person meeting with Sarah and Rick Miller since he was appointed as counsel for her. Sarah inquires as to what he would like to discuss in person that cannot be communicated over the phone or via email, as this is during the height of COVID-19 and Sarah has an autoimmune disease that places her on the CDC’s high risk list. Due to Sarah’s persistence, Mr. Miller finally called Sarah, but still refused to discuss anything pertinent about the case other than to tell Sarah that there were a “few things that piqued [his] interest,” and that he refused to discuss in any manner other than in person. Sarah expressed her health concerns, once again, with in person meetings, which Mr. Miller continued to ignore. Sarah sent Mr. Miller detailed emails with her concerns and questions, which included Mr. Miller’s request that Sarah not be allowed to communicate with her Victim Advocate, but all of these were ignored. It quickly became obvious that the reason Mr. Miller refused to communicate in any way other than in person, was because he did not want any physical documentation or recording of their conversation and what he wanted to discuss. After being ignored by Mr. Miller for over two months, Sarah sent an email requesting that Mr. Miller withdraw as her counsel since he refused to correspond with her or answer any of her questions. Since Mr. Miller was still assigned as her counsel, all that his assignment had the effect of doing was to prevent the court from allowing Sarah to speak and voice her concerns. As soon as Sarah requested his withdrawal on May 23, 2020, all of a sudden Mr. Miller was willing to speak over the phone. Sarah knew that since he had refused for months to answer any of her questions over email, which would provide written documentation of his responses, she insisted that he pose any questions to her via email, which he refused to do. Sarah also stated that if Mr. Miller could not accommodate this email communication request, then she would like Mr. Miller to just proceed with withdrawing as counsel. Mr. Miller pushed off filing the motion to withdraw as counsel until the same day the prosecutor, Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert, submitted a motion on June 12, 2020 (see below) to dismiss the absurd charge against DJ, to which Sarah was labeled a victim because of this charge. This had the effect of dropping Sarah as a victim in the case, and therefore, took away all of her legal rights to address the court during hearings. Mr. Miller made sure he submitted his motion on the same day as the prosecutor, so that Sarah literally could not have been able to speak in court. He knew that if he had submitted his motion to withdraw prior to the prosecutor dropping Sarah as a victim, then it would have provided Sarah the ability to exercise her victim rights and voice her concerns in court.
March 16, 2020
Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert approached DJ inside the courtroom without his attorney present and specifically asked him if Sarah would be present at the hearing that day (once again violating rules for speaking with the defendant without his counsel present, and engaging in ex-parte communication). Later Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert went outside the courtroom while DJ was conferring with his publicly assigned attorney (since Judge Garcia had allowed Jason Lamm to withdraw as counsel), and interrupted their privileged conversation to inform them that the judge was ready to begin proceedings. It is unclear how long Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert was present during their conversation prior to her interruption.
​
June 12, 2020
Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert filed a motion to dismiss DJ’s disorderly conduct charge, but failed to follow proper procedure as Sarah, (who was still labeled as a victim), was never notified of her intent prior to the filing of the motion. This violates Rule 39b(7) as it relates to Victim’s Rights. Additionally, the motion does not include how the other victim (Jacob) felt regarding this decision. The result of dismissing this charge, would also have the effect of dropping Sarah as a victim in the case. It is important to note that Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert filed this motion during the same timeframe that Sarah filed a motion to have the entire case dismissed with prejudice. As a result, the presiding judge (Jeanne Garcia) received both of these motions at the same time; however, because she reviewed the prosecutor’s motion first, she ruled in favor of dismissing the charge and, thus, dropped Sarah as a victim. As a result, the judge stated that because Sarah was no longer a victim, she would not even read Sarah’s motion and deemed it “moot.” Once again, the individuals that are elected into a position to uphold justice, and to be fair (blindfolded) and unbiased, are abusing their power and ignoring their responsibilities. This ruling (and the order in which it was done) was intentional and deliberate.
​
August 2020
Prosecutor Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert gets removed from the case after being the lead prosecutor for 3 years. This is coincidentally right after the findings from the MCSO internal investigation (that the prosecutor started) were publicly released. The MCAO assigned prosecutor Frankie Grimsman as Ferguson-Gilbert’s replacement. By this time, COVID had spread worldwide and all court proceedings were being conducted virtually, yet there was no formal acknowledgement of one prosecutor being removed and the other taking over. This is also the same time that Judge Garcia decided to retire and DJ’s case now became part of the regular judicial rotation where he was bounced around on several different judge’s calendars.
For nearly the next year DJ continued to request to push forward to trial and refused to accept an offensive plea offer that would force him to accept guilt for something he was not guilty of. Despite DJ’s requests to go to trial and to no longer waive his time, he was still forced to do so due to court calendar scheduling conflicts or the prosecutor being on vacation, which was a direct violation of DJ’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.
June 2021
DJ’s court appointed attorney through the Office of Contract Counsel, Edwin Molina, filed a motion with the court to depose former prosecutor Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert in order to question her regarding Sarah’s interview that was deleted by MCSO Detective Albert Bouchard. Newly assigned prosecutor Frankie Grimsman’s supervisor, Joshua Clark, decides to get involved and submits his own motion to the court opposing the request to depose Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert. By this time, the videos of Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert telling MCSO’s Professional Standards Bureau during her interview about the deleted interview have been publicly released. In these videos she fully admits that not only are MCSO and MCAO “on the same team,” but she also states that Detective Bouchard’s deletion of evidence could lead to a Willit’s Instruction (see section above under February 28, 2018), and therefore, a not guilty verdict if the case went to trial. The assigned judge, Lisa Vandenburg, ruled in favor of the prosecution’s motion, thus denying DJ’s attorney the ability to question Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert.
July 2021
DJ’s case is finally scheduled to go to trial and trial proceedings begin on July 26, 2021. Sarah is told that although neither side (prosecution nor defense) plans on calling her as a witness, she is still not allowed to be present in the courtroom. In fact, Judge Joel Fox kicks her out of the courtroom and threatens that he will hold her in contempt if she tries to come into the courtroom. Since the court was still observing COVID protocols during this time, no outside supporters were permitted to be in the courtroom, so by the time jury selection had begun, it looked to the jury as if DJ had no support from family, friends, or the public. This was done intentionally not only to separate DJ and Sarah, but to also leave DJ feeling completely isolated and alone. Additionally, DJ now had not one, but two prosecutors on the case, as Frankie Grimsman’s supervisor Joshua Clark, had now added himself as a second prosecuting attorney for the state. Mr. Clark has recently been in the local news for his own misconduct in the courtroom (see section on Todd Whittard on the “Officer Misconduct” page). This just further reiterates the misconduct and blatant lack of professionalism from not only the prosecutors, but from their supervisors as well. Additionally, DJ’s attorney (Mr. Molina) disclosed to DJ in private, during a break in jury selection, that Joshua Clark had threatened to report him to the State Bar of Arizona because he had requested to depose the former prosecutor Catherine Ferguson-Gilbert.
Jury selection officially began on July 27, 2021. During this selection process, Judge Joel Fox advised the attorneys that they are not permitted to disclose to the potential jury members that DJ was a Phoenix firefighter because he felt that in doing so, it would bias the potential jury members and cause them to have empathy for DJ. Interestingly, one of the potential jury members, raised her hand and divulged that she knew something about the case, so she was advised that the judge and attorneys would speak with her privately about what she knew. During this private meeting, she disclosed that she worked as a bartender and one of the officers involved in the case would come in to the restaurant where she worked and talk to her about the case, so she already knew details and that DJ was a firefighter; however, she was told that she was not allowed to share that information with other potential jury members.
Additional courtroom shenanigans ensued among the prosecution including prosecutor Frankie Grimsman coaching potential jury members to raise their hand if they enjoyed “vigilante movies” like she did, including “Taken” and “The Equalizer?” Jury members that raised their hands were then promptly excused by the prosecutor from jury selection. However, potential members that were retired police officers and worked at domestic violence shelters were chosen to stay. On top of all of this, an existing judge for the Maricopa County Superior Court, Judge Joseph Kreamer, who worked in the same division, was not only allowed to be a part of the jury selection process, but he was selected by the prosecution to serve as a jury member. As if this were not corrupt enough, Kreamer was not only the presiding judge for DPS Supervisor Todd Whittard (who was a part of DJ’s case and was charged and found guilty for taking evidence home), but Kreamer is also a member of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, which "investigates and disciplines judges and operates under special rules that were created for Arizona’s court system that exempt it from state public record and open meeting laws.” (See article below and section on Todd Whittard on the “Officer Misconduct” page)
Additionally, Detective Albert Bouchard, who deleted evidence, and in doing so caused MCSO to open an internal investigation (see section on Albert Bouchard on the “Officer Misconduct” page), was “coincidentally” on FMLA during trial. As a result, Detective Bouchard could not be subpoenaed to testify during trial; therefore, prosector Frankie Grimsman submitted a motion to refuse to allow any evidence or information of Detective Bouchard’s misconduct, including the fact that he was suspended and placed on the Brady List for his misconduct, to be submitted during trial. The excuse was that because Detective Bouchard could not be present to testify and defend his actions, then none of that information could even be spoken about at trial. Judge Fox granted this motion, so the jury would never be permitted to hear about Detective Bouchard’s misconduct that the previous prosecutor Ms. Ferguson-Gilbert said could be grounds for a Willit’s instruction, and thus, lead to a not guilty verdict in trial (see section on Albert Bouchard on the “Officer Misconduct” page for more detail).
​
At the end of a very long and tiring day, the final jury members were selected. The prosecution and Judge Fox tried to persuade DJ to allow the jury members to go home and to wait until the following day to officially swear them in, claiming that this was “just procedural” and made no difference in the case, but was ultimately up to him. DJ, rightfully so, did not trust anything the prosecution was trying to talk him into, so he respectfully declined also not wanting to make the jury members come back just to officially swear them in. This decision was critical because at this point the prosecution already knew that Jacob had failed to comply with multiple previous subpoenas, and he was refusing to show up for trial.
August 2, 2021
On August 2, 2021, four years to the day after this nightmare began, the prosecutor Ms. Grimsman, submitted a motion to dismiss all of the charges against DJ. What is imperative to understand here, is that if DJ had not made the decision to take the extra 10 minutes to officially swear the jurors in, then trial would not have “officially” began, and instead of the prosecutor dismissing the case entirely, she could have dropped the case only to re-submit charges against DJ later. The Double Jeopardy law states that once an individual begins trial and the case is dismissed, then that individual cannot be re-tried (https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/02-double-jeopardy.html). Of course DJ did not want to leave room for any unforeseen loopholes that the prosecutor would undoubtedly search for, so DJ requested that his attorney submit a motion to Judge Fox to request that the case be dismissed with prejudice, so that the court record would legally and officially show that DJ can never be re-tried for the same charges as it pertains to this case.
​
The prosecution will tell you that the only reason they submitted the motion to dismiss the case was because Jacob was “too scared” to show up for trial and they did not want to force him to show up, as they claim it would “re-victimize him.” The absolute truth of the matter is that none of the “evidence” they had matched the lies that Jacob told, and Jacob refused to show up and testify because he had lied so many times, that there was no way his lies would hold up in court, let alone in front of a jury. Even though the constitution states that an individual has a right to face his or her accuser in court, the prosecution does not need to have the victim present in order to proceed with trial. Additionally, if DJ had truly done what they were accusing him of, charges worth him spending literally the rest of his life in prison, then why just let someone that “dangerous” go? Why allow that individual to walk free and have all of his rights restored, including the right to bear arms? Additionally, if Jacob was so scared, then why did he move 3 miles closer to DJ? This had absolutely nothing to do with Jacob being scared. MCAO knew that their plan to use Sarah against DJ had failed, and the only witness they had was Jacob, who lied multiple times, had zero injuries, had an irrefutable familial connection within MCSO that blatantly overreacted and then purposely deleted the evidence that proved that connection existed.
​
The truly nauseating part about this, besides the hell that the Lee family was forced to endure, is the lengths that MCAO and MCSO went to in order to pursue persecuting an innocent man. There are countless stories in the media where proven career criminals continue to commit heinous crimes, and their charges are significantly less than the 68 years that DJ was facing (see news links below). The justice system is broken. It is not “blind” as it claims to be, but rather it intentionally turns a blind eye to the truth. Unfortunately, just because DJ’s case was dismissed with prejudice, the repercussions he and his family continue to face are ongoing. DJ’s career as a firefighter was demolished (see “Civil Service Board” page for more details), all of DJ’s retirement and savings were spent on trying to fight the justice system, and his reputation has been forever tarnished. DJ faces judgement, even among total strangers, everywhere he goes, and his children also suffer ridicule from peers. The financial strain on the Lee family is never ending, especially in today’s economy where inflation is at an all time high, as any potential new employers are deterred when they learn that DJ was terminated from his last job as a firefighter. Even though DJ had a spotless and commendable career as a firefighter, this was completely shattered and stained all because of cowardly lies.
The Maricopa County Superior Court states the following when it comes to their vision and values (https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/5253/chief-apo-announcement-final-004.pdf):
​
“Our mission is clear and simple; we are dedicated to providing a safe, fair and impartial forum for resolving disputes, enhancing access to our services, and providing innovative, evidenced-based practices that improve the safety of our community and ensure the public's trust and confidence in the Judicial Branch.”
While this statement may sound idyllic and good on paper, it could not be in more stark contrast from the truth. Actions truly do speak louder than words, and the actions of the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office go completely against what they claim to stand for and uphold.
Balance of Justice??
The following are just a few examples of stories in the news in which there is irrefutable evidence of aggravated assault, and yet these individuals were treated drastically different from DJ. If we are all held to follow and obey the same rules and laws, then there should be no difference in the treatment we receive when being accused of breaking these laws; however, because DJ's accuser, Jacob Rector, has family in the Sheriff's Department, DJ was facing the rest of his life in prison for allegations he was innocent of. These stories are proof that the scales of justice tip drastically differently and only serve to showcase the flaws and corruption in our justice system, in addition to the preferential treatment one will receive as long as they are "backed by the blue." Keep in mind that most of the following stories have video footage evidence of assault, and yet the suspects faced little to no repercussions for their actions despite being repeat offenders.
-
Phoenix police officer Tim Baiardi is caught on camera assaulting a handcuffed young man, pleads guilty, and yet he did not spend even one day in jail. Court records show that he only received one charge of aggravated assault, and was only sentenced with unsupervised probation, which was dismissed entirely less than one year later.
2. Career criminal Joe Ernest Meza is caught on camera violently assaulting two elderly women in an IHOP restaurant, stealing money from the cash register, and then setting a fire in the kitchen. He only received 2 counts of aggravated assault, and spent 2 months in jail, after which his case was dismissed.
​
3. Fellow Phoenix Firefighter Carlos Encinas is charged with sexual assault for raping a young woman. His charges were ultimately dismissed by the prosecution. It should be noted that this was not his first sexual assault offense.
​
​
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/phoenix-firefighter-accused-of-raping-woman-inside-her-home
​
4. Fellow Phoenix Firefighter Christina Leon was charged with assaulting two Scottsdale Police Officers. She pled guilty to a lesser charge and received probation, yet she is still employed with the Phoenix Fire Department.
​
​
​
5. Jay Edwards Fields was charged with 3 counts of aggravated assault, 2 counts of burglary, and one count of disorderly conduct for breaking into his ex-girlfriend’s house after spying on and seeing her in the shower with her new boyfriend. He then broke into the home with a handgun, assaulted the woman, and broke down a door to get to the man, forcing him to jump out a window on to cactus. His charges were dropped to just the disorderly conduct charge (a class 6 felony), which was eventually set aside, which means it was overturned upon review (see below).
​
https://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/viewerME.asp?fn=Criminal/032022/m9891094.pdf
“IT IS ORDERED The judgment of guilt in this case is set aside, dismissing the information or indictment, and releasing the defendant from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the above-captioned conviction except as provided by law.”
​
​
6. Scottsdale Fire Department Captain Steve Leitzell was accused of pointing a gun at teenagers at his daughter's prom party, resisting arrest, and threatening suicide upon arrest. He was tased and taken into custody where he was facing two counts of disorderly conduct, one count of aggravated assault against as officer, and one count of resisting arrest. After most of the charges were dismissed, Leitzell was ultimately charged with resisting arrest, and was placed on probation.
​
​
​
​
