Levy's dirty trick

The unscrupulous and ruthless efforts of county prosecutor NOEL LEVY were apparent in the testimony of former Phoenix police detective Armando Saldate - testimony that LEVY approved and guided [see also The Grand Jury Hearing or Saldate's testimony at the Voluntariness Hearing). But LEVY'S dubious tactics began well before the trial. Why, if LEVY really believed the indictment of Debra Milke was justly obtained and the 'alleged confession' believable, did he try to arrange a plea bargain with ROGER SCOTT - against whom they had a taped confession - for his testimony at Debra's trial? This is exactly what happened.

On Wednesday, April 11, 1990 The Mesa Tribune covered:

Plea agreement withdrawn
for Milke slaying defendant

By Chris Coppola
Tribute writer

PHOENIX - A plea agreement calling for a man charged in the slaying of a 4-year-old Phoenix boy to testify against two others was withdrawn in Maricopa County Superior Court on Tuesday.

Instead, ROGER MARK SCOTT, 41, was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. His trial with JAMES LYNN STYERS, 42, will be delayed until the exam is completed. The boy's mother, Debra Milke, 25, also is charged in the killing.

SCOTT and STYERS are charged with first-degree murder in the death of Christopher Milke, who was taken to the desert northwest of Phoenix and fatally shot last December.

Police believed the boy's mother conspired with the men to have her son killed.

Deputy County Attorney NOEL LEVY said Tuesday a tentative agreement had been reached that would have allowed SCOTT to plead guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for his testimony against Debra Milke and STYERS.

Comment: In other words, LEVY feared that he didn't have enough evidence against either STYERS or Debra to get a conviction. The entire 'conspiracy' theory was shaky from early on, and in fact, this unlikely theory, based solely on ROGER SCOTT'S incoherent and self-serving statement, hindered investigation of the true facts of CHRIS' murder and showed no respect for the brutally murdered little boy.

The proposed agreement with SCOTT was "based on the fact that he was not the trigger man," LEVY said.

Comment: Fact? What fact? There was no reason to assume that ROGER SCOTT wasn't the trigger man. SCOTT lied all the way through the initial police investigations, until he would allegedly admit "JIM killed him" [CHRISTOPHER]. Incredibly, SALDATE'S fellow detective ROBERT MILL'S report doesn't reproduce this statement of SCOTT inside the car at all. SALDATE and LEVY chose to believe this purported version. The use of the word 'facts' in a newspaper sounds convincing, yet - there were no facts or proof to corroborate this version.

The plea agreement would have allowed SCOTT to avoid a possible death penalty.

However, SCOTT'S attorney, Ronald Steinle, told Superior Judge Peter D'Angelo he did not want to enter the plea until SCOTT could be examined to determine whether he could fully comprehend the agreement.

Steinle said SCOTT suffered a blow to the head that causes short memory lapses and also has been taking medication that could affect his coherence.

LEVY told D'Angelo that, given the issues raised about SCOTT'S medical status, the plea agreement should be withdrawn.

"Quite frankly, I'd rather go ahead with a trial for MR. SCOTT rather than take any risks in a case like this," LEVY said.

D'Angelo ordered a full psychological examination, which STYERS also is undergoing. A new trial date will be scheduled for the men after those tests are completed.

Debra Milke is scheduled to be tried separately May 4.

Comment: And that was for a reason. Debra - as well as JAMES STYERS - have always claimed their innocence. Debra suffered from immense grief and pain over the entire situation and wanted to begin the steps - including mourning for her child - that would allow her to go on with the rest of her life. She wanted her trial "done", since she believed in the truthfulness of the Arizona justice system and had no doubts she would be acquitted - for she is innocent of any involvement in CHRIS' death.

LEVY said after Tuesday's hearing that he has not ruled out reconsidering a plea agreement for SCOTT that would require his testimony against the two other suspects.

Comment: And as we will see, LEVY really tried it again ...

Investigators have said SCOTT agreed to drive STYERS and the child to an area near 99th Avenue and Happy Valley Road. Once there, STYERS allegedly shot the boy several times in the head, police said.

STYERS initially told police he took the boy to the Metro Center shopping center in Phoenix to see Santa Claus when the child disappeared.

Comment: Isn't it interesting that none of the newspaper articles ever covered the real circumstances of the 'confession' made by ROGER SCOTT, including the fact that he did not incriminate Debra when he first confessed to involvement in CHRIS' murder? And by the way, STYERS never told CHRISTOPHER he would see Santa Claus. STYERS had been with CHRISTOPHER and his own daughter WENDY to the shopping mall the day before [Friday, December 1st, 1989]. That's where CHRIS saw Santa Claus, and that's where the child wanted to return to. When STYERS told Debbie that he planned to return to the Metro Center to continue his Christmas shopping, CHRISTOPHER begged to accompany him. The headline "Boy told he was going to see Santa Claus ..." was simply the media latching onto a sensationalistic - and untrue - part of the story because it sold papers. And it made a fair trial for Debra impossible to obtain.

COUNTY OF MARICOPA STATE OF ARIZONA

AFFIDAVIT OF ROLAND J. STEINLE III.

---

Undersigned. ROLAND J. STEINLE III, being first duly sworn, hereby testifies and affirms:

1. On or about December 20, 1989 the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office was appointed to represent ROGER MARK SCOTT in Maricopa County Superior Court case number CR 89-12631, State v. Roger Scott, a capital trial;
2. I was the attorney of record for MR. SCOTT during his trial and sentencing up through December 11, 1991;
3. MR. SCOTT complained of "brain shrinkage", which is why I requested a Rule 11 evaluation by Dr. Donald Tatro on July 30, 1990. Given Dr. Tatro's report, I was aware that MR. SCOTT exhibited serious mental misconceptions; however, I did not seek any additional assistance because Dr. Tatro had concluded that MR. SCOTT was competent;
4. Sometime after August 2, 1990 the State of Arizona presented a plea offer to MR. SCOTT;
5. Before the trial, my co-counsel, William Foreman, and I discussed the plea offer with MR. SCOTT at the Maricopa County Jail;
6. The State of Arizona indicated that if MR. SCOTT agreed to testify and was truthful in his testimony he could plead guilty to second-degree murder;
7. Upon receiving the plea offer from the County Attorney, Mr. Foreman and I took the written plea offer to MR. SCOTT at the County Jail;
8. MR. SCOTT indicated to me that he would sign the plea, but he would not read it. MR. SCOTT indicated to me that he would "say what I wanted him to say" even though he felt this testimony would not be what he felt was the truth.
9. MR. SCOTT orally agreed to accept the plea when I explained it, but he refused to read the written document before signing it;
10. We spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain that he had to read the document and understand it before signing;
11. He refused and maintained the untenable position that he was not guilty of this terrible crime, even though he had made statements that supported several elements of the crimes;
12. After trying to explain the realities of the case to MR. SCOTT and attempting to convince him to accept the plea, MR. SCOTT finally said to do what ever I want and requested to be returned to his cell. He basically just shut down;
13. We knew that this was the only viable strategy to avoid the death penalty, but MR. SCOTT refused to accept our advice;
14. In hindsight, we should have re-litigated the competency issue after we became aware that MR. SCOTT was unable to analyze or understand the repercussions of his decision to refuse to read the plea and accept it;
15. It is my understanding that Mr. John Rood III was appointed to represent MR. SCOTT on his appeal. Mr. Rood never contacted me or requested my file;
16. It is my understanding that Neal Bassett was appointed to represent MR. SCOTT in his Post-Conviction proceedings;
17. I was not interviewed, or in any way contacted, by Mr. Bassett in preparation of MR. SCOTT'S Petition for Post-Conviction Relief;
18. Mr. Bassett never requested me to release my file to him;
19. I had difficulties at every stage in discussing the proceedings with MR. SCOTT. He would appear to listen, be polite - never confrontational, and say "anything you want", but did not appear to truly understand the ramifications or to understand why certain prerequisites were required, especially in regards to the plea;
20. MR. SCOTT appeared to want to make everyone like him. He wanted everyone to be his friend;
21. It appeared that MR. STYERS was MR. SCOTT'S only friend. He desperately wanted to keep MR. STYERS as his friend even after MR. STYERS had turned on him;
22. I did not provide any family, social or medical history to Dr. Tatro or provide family members to Dr. Tatro to assist Dr. Tatro in forming his opinion about MR. SCOTT'S competency (Dr. Tatro did obtain some of this history from MR. SCOTT himself);
23. I accepted and stipulated to the two doctor's findings of competency.
24. I did not investigate or research what, if any effect, the fact that MR. SCOTT suffered from Gran Mal seizures had on MR. SCOTT'S ability to understand the consequences of his decisions;
25. I did not meet with MR. SCOTT'S family about the offer of a plea (however I did speak to his mother by telephone, but not about the plea), when he appeared to not comprehend the significance of the plea offer or to understand the seriousness of his predicament;
26. We were under time constraints. I believe we only had a two week window to accept or reject the plea. MR. STYERS' trial was commencing and a plea was needed before then;
27. It was very frustrating trying to explain to MR. SCOTT the dynamics of the criminal justice system as it related to him because he did not appear to understand the dynamics of accepting the plea offer to avoid the death penalty or to understand that having knowledge of what STYERS planned to do and driving STYERS made him responsible for the crime as well;
28. I did speak to MR. SCOTT before the interview with the probation officer. I did not, nor did anyone else, attend the Probation Officer's interview with MR. SCOTT even though we were aware that he would "fold" under any type of examination, as he did during cross examination at trial.
    
    FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
    
    Signed: RONALD J. STEINLE III.
    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, April 1998.

These documents show how little interest County Attorney NOEL LEVY had in finding the truth. He simply accepted the story presented by Armando Saldate [maybe even reinforced the officer to pen the story this way], with its unsupported belief in the self-serving and disjointed tale told by ROGER SCOTT. That SCOTT is no source for the truth, is shown clearly by his lawyer's sworn statement that "MR. SCOTT indicated to me that he would 'say what I wanted him to say', even though he felt this testimony would not be what he felt was the truth." But the State based its entire "investigation" on "proving" what SCOTT said. And when there wasn't any evidence to support ROGER SCOTT'S story, the state was willing to offer SCOTT a very favorable plea deal - twice - rather than figure out why his story wasn't backed by evidence. SCOTT, however, was so unbalanced that he couldn't even do basic things like reading the offered plea agreement. And so, the County Attorney - using the underhanded tactics we have shown in this web site to secure the conviction of Debra Milke - ended up achieving three death sentences, instead of only one [which would've been justified].
Defense attorney STEINLE knew SCOTT'S story was "untenable", as he states in his affidavit. From the various confused and contradictory statements SCOTT made, the best possible scenario STEINLE could base his defense strategy on was that SCOTT was "only" the driver of the car (as SCOTT had claimed in his original statement). From this defense attorney's point of view, this strategy is understandable.