Sixth Ammendment Violation

September 24, 1999
Re: File Number, 99-1536
State Bar of Arizona
1111 N. Monroe
Suite 1800
Phoenix, AZ 85003
James Lee

My name is Richard Dale McClure. I am writing to you again in reference to Pima County case number CR-63715. The previous letter explained the circumstances of the case and its current standing.

I am filing a complaint against James Alexander the attorney assigned to defend me. I am also filing a complaint against Judge Michael Alfred who has refused to honor my right to a speedy trial by imposing a waiver without my permission and against my stated disapproval of that waiver in his court.

The case against me has no merit. The prosecution can not take this case back to trial because the only evidence is perjured testimony from a state witness. The victims of this crime have maintained that this state witness is the person that committed this crime. Therefore his testimony should never have been admitted in light of the evidence that proved his involvement. It is doubtful that the prosecution will attempt to use that testimony in the next trial. My first trial was on June 1, 1999 and ended in a hung jury because county employees were assigned to my jury illegally.

James Alexander was assigned to my case July 1, 1999. Our first court appearance was July 12, 1999. This case was scheduled to be tried again on August 1, 1999 according to speedy trial guidelines. Judge Michael Alfred postponed the trial to September 28, 1999 to allow James Alexander to prepare for trial. A request for trial transcripts and associated case history was applied for that very day and it was agreed on that 2 ½ months was ample time to prepare for trial. I expressed my strong desire to James Alexander that I would not surrender my right to a speedy trial any further. James Alexander agreed with me and it would pose no further problems.

After July 12, 1999 I was unable to contact James Alexander, although I tried repeatedly on several occasions. I spoke to his secretary several times on the phone and I left more than just a few messages for James Alexander to get in touch with me. I was told each time that I called that James Alexander left no response to my messages. I asked the secretary several times to update me on James Alexander's progress on my case. Each time she assured me that he was on schedule. After each update I told the secretary that I was not willing to prolong this trial any further. Because of my position I needed constant updates and I did not want any motions filed that would delay this trial. I continued to contact James Alexander's office by phone and mail to instruct my lawyer to file motions of suppression and final disclosure. James Alexander responded to me in writing that he was not going to file any motions at this time.

On September 17, 1999 I again phoned James Alexander's office to find out why my messages remained unanswered. His secretary told me he was not in. I asked for an update and she informed me that a date was set for September 20, 1999 to set a motion to continue the trial. On September 20, 1999 James Alexander appeared in court (with the prosecutor) I asked him why he went against my desire and filed the motion to continue. I also asked why he refused to answer my calls. His response was " Shut up, I don't want to hear it!" Once again I reminded him I was not going to waiver my trial rights for any reason.

When the hearing began James Alexander read the motion and then told the Judge that he might want to talk to me concerning my speedy trial rights. Judge Michael Alfred said that he did not want to hear anything that I had to say. I then spoke up and told the court that I refused to waive my trial any longer. Judge Alfred told me to sit down and shut up and granted the motion anyway. I then told Judge Alfred " You have violated my right to a speedy trial for the past 2 ½ months to give James Alexander time to prepare and now you are going to do it again, regardless of what I have to say in this?" He said I just did, and I was removed from the court at the Judges insistence. Needless to say we exchanged some rather unpleasant words on the way out.

I heard form the other inmates in the group that James Alexander lied to the Judge and said that I was verbally abusive to him every time he tried to talk to me and that it was impossible for him to defend me. This was a straight out lie, I have only spoken with him twice and both times it was in court. Neither time did I ever say anything offensive.

You would think that a prosecutor would be willing to go to trial if I wanted to go to trial with a lawyer that wasn't prepared to present the case. Not this time, for the first time in the 11 months that I've been in jail the prosecutor agreed with the delay. Alexander's excuse for not being prepared for trial was that he had just received the transcripts and associated case histories from the last trial.

The prosecutor knows that this case is a no win for the state, so he is using delaying tactics as a way of increasing my time in jail. By his actions James Alexander seems to be playing right along with him. Something needs to be done about this. I have not been informed of a new trial date. Please respond soon as I am still in jail. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Richard Dale McClure
hhw