Introduction
In the State of Arizona, the very system that is supposed to safeguard the rights of the accused often betrays them in the most fundamental ways. One glaring example of this betrayal is the use of the Anders Brief by state court-appointed appellate attorneys. This legal tool, originally intended as a safeguard, has become a means for the state to seal the fate of defendants, shutting the door on meaningful appeals and, by extension, on justice itself.
The Origins and Misuse of the Anders Brief
The Anders Brief originates from the 1967 Supreme Court case Anders v. California, where the Court ruled that if a court-appointed attorney finds no merit in an appeal, they may submit a brief stating that they found no arguable issues for review. The attorney is then allowed to withdraw from the case, leaving the defendant to proceed pro se, or without legal representation. This process was meant to balance the defendant’s right to counsel with the attorney’s ethical obligation not to pursue frivolous appeals.
However, in Arizona, this brief has been perverted into a tool of systemic oppression. State court-appointed attorneys, tasked with defending the rights of the accused, routinely file these briefs not out of ethical necessity, but out of a desire to expedite cases and avoid the laborious process of actually advocating for their clients. By claiming “no arguable error,” these attorneys help the state close the book on any potential appeal issues, effectively silencing the defendant and depriving them of their Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.
A Pattern of Human Rights Violations
The implications of this practice are profound. When an attorney, who is supposed to be the defendant’s last line of defense, fails to challenge even the most blatant errors in a trial, it signals a broad pattern of human rights violations. This is not just an issue of individual attorneys shirking their duties; it is indicative of a corruptive practice deeply ingrained in the state courts, especially in Arizona.
Take, for instance, my own experience. During my appeal process, despite the existence of clear and significant errors in the original trial—errors that should have been grounds for appeal—my court-appointed attorney, Stephen Johnson, filed an Anders Brief. This action was not only a betrayal of my trust but also a violation of my constitutional rights. Johnson had numerous bar complaints filed against him at the State Bar of Arizona, none of which were disclosed to me, but were known to the court. His failure to argue on my behalf effectively sealed the state’s case against me, leaving me with no recourse in the state court system.
The state of Arizona presented Stephen M. Johnson with a law license in 1994 after he graduated from Puget Sound University Law School.
The Arizona State Bar found Stephen guilty of engaging in the following misconduct on at least three (3) occasions.
Stephen’s 1st bite at the Attorney Misfit Apple Tree
Unfortunately for his clients (aka, victims) Phillip’s misconduct arose out of his conduct of clients he was appointed to represent.
- Failed to adequately communicate with his clients
- Failed to follow client directions concerning scope of legal representation
- Failed to cooperate with State Bar investigation (Up Yours, said Stephen!)
- Failed to diligently represent clients (slacker)
- Failed to properly protect client property
- Sanction by Court of Appeals for misrepresenting (lying) why he needed repeated extensions of time to file appeal brief
- Repeatedly violated court orders
- Failed to return unearned fees (crook)
As a consequence of his misconduct, Arizona Supreme Court punished Stephen by a 181-day suspension of his law license.
Cited: Report
This is not an isolated incident. Many defendants in Arizona find themselves in a similar position, where their appointed counsel abandons them under the guise of filing an Anders Brief. The widespread use of this tactic highlights a systemic failure within Arizona’s legal system, where the rights of the accused are sacrificed in favor of expediency and the preservation of the state’s convictions.
“The State of Arizona cannot win cases on facts and law, only by fraud and so it denies justice by technicalities rather than addressing merits.This is criminal in nature.”
– Ewing Redmond Samuels III
Corruption and Complicity
The corruption does not stop with the attorneys. Prosecutors and judges are complicit in this process. Prosecutors, who are supposed to seek justice, turn a blind eye to the rights of the defendant, while judges, who are supposed to be impartial arbiters, allow these briefs to pass without question. The result is a system that works not for justice, but for the maintenance of convictions, regardless of the cost to human rights.
Specific examples abound. Lori Eidemanis, the prosecutor at the trial, engaged in criminal conspiracy, by active fraudulent concealment of impeachment and exculpatory evidence using false testimony from Detective Marchele Miller, despite both being aware of the lies they presented. Operating under the color of law, actively engaged in misconduct by manipulating evidence to obtain my conviction. Yet, on January 25, 2017 – the record is proof with Lori Eidemanis remarks “We don’t disclose”, when Judge George H. Foster, Jr. told the Defense that Sheriff’s deputies were present to arrest the state’s witness Jamil Trevon Curd. At the time, he had five arrest warrants, a pending death investigation for the murder of Royce Emmett Walker on May 21, 2015 and Jamil was the only suspect, and lastly, Detective Marchele Miller had a criminal history and an arrest record since February 23, 2012.
“The record reflects Samuels received a fair trial, a statement made by the court even though there is unmistakable Constitutional violations and fundamental errors in the transcript of January 25,2017 – that goes to the core of the case, itself. It is the ORDER itself that damned the judges that they are INDEED corrupt.”
– Ewing Redmond Samuels III
The judiciary did not act as a safeguard either. Judges David D. Weinzweig, Michael J. Brown, and Maria Elena Cruz, who comprised the appellate panel, claimed there was “no fundamental error” in my case, despite overwhelming evidence of Brady/Giglio Disclosure violations and Due Process failures. These violations were so apparent that even a first-year law student could have identified them. The January 25, 2017 transcript clearly documents the moment Sheriff Deputies entered Judge George H. Foster, Jr.‘s chambers—a scene that underscores the severe level of prosecutorial misconduct and the judiciary’s failure to act, yet can be seen as the Judges aiding and abetting the State to cover-up.
Criminal Accountability Under International Law
The actions of these individuals are not just ethical breaches; they are criminal acts under international law. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international legal bodies recognize the willful deprivation of a person’s rights as a crime, particularly when carried out systematically by state actors. The following individuals, involved in my case, are deemed and designated criminals under international law for their roles in these human rights violations:
- Deputy County Attorney David R. Foster
Role: Prosecutor at the Grand Jury Proceedings who obtained my indictment using false testimony provided by Detective Marchele Miller.
Criminal Designation: Violating my right to a fair trial through deliberate falsehoods and human rights abuses. - Detective Marchele Miller
Role: Collaborated with David R. Foster to present false testimony during the Grand Jury Proceedings, leading to my indictment.
Criminal Designation: Conspiring to violate my rights under color of law. - Lori Eidemanis, Trial Prosecutor
Role: Engaged in criminal conduct during my trial, abusing the authority granted under the color of law to secure my wrongful conviction.
Criminal Designation: Violating my right to a fair trial and participating in state abuse of power. - Stephen Johnson, Court-Appointed Appellate Attorney
Role: Filed an Anders Brief in my appeal despite clear trial errors, and failed to disclose his numerous bar complaints, thereby violating my Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.
Criminal Designation: Complicity in depriving me of my constitutional rights and contributing to systemic human rights abuses. - Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Maria Elena Cruz
Role: Deliberately overlooked fundamental legal errors in my case, compounding the wrongful conviction. Their failure to recognize obvious Brady/Giglio violations and Due Process failures demonstrates their active role in maintaining systemic injustice.
Criminal Designation: Conspiring to uphold a wrongful conviction, knowingly violating my rights under both domestic and international law. - Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO)
Role: The office has a documented history of covering up prosecutorial misconduct, including in my case, and enabling human rights abuses to persist through deliberate inaction and complicity.
Criminal Designation: Engaging in a systemic pattern of human rights abuses, which are in violation of international law.
Addressing These Violations in International Courts
These violations are not merely failures of domestic law; they are human rights abuses that can and should be addressed in international courts. When a state-appointed attorney, who is supposed to defend the rights of the accused, instead collaborates with the state to deprive a defendant of their Sixth Amendment rights, it constitutes a violation of fundamental freedoms protected under international law.
The international community must take notice of these practices in Arizona and beyond. The state’s courts have demonstrated that they are either unwilling or incapable of policing themselves. It is time for international bodies to step in and hold these actors accountable for their actions. The systemic use of Anders Briefs to deny defendants their right to a fair appeal is a clear violation of human rights, and those responsible—from the attorneys to the judges to the prosecutors—must be held accountable.
Conclusion
The use of the Anders Brief in Arizona is not just a legal strategy; it is a manifestation of a deeply corrupt system that prioritizes convictions over justice. The state’s court-appointed attorneys, by filing these briefs, are complicit in a broad pattern of human rights violations. This practice denies defendants their Sixth Amendment rights and leaves them vulnerable to an unaccountable and oppressive legal system. It is time to expose these practices for what they are and to seek justice not just in state courts, but on an international stage where human rights abuses are not tolerated.
Until Next Time…
I Am,
Ewing Redmond Samuels III
For those who have experienced similar injustices, know that you are not alone. Together, we can shine a light on these practices and work towards a system that truly upholds the principles of justice and human rights.
