Dave Hutchison 
Member since Apr 12, 2014



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Stand With Monica: Stop Profiling Trans Women of Color

Monica Jones Guilty Observations

Monica did a great job of testifying after the move to dismiss on constitutional grounds was denied.

The judge was very good, very precise and detailed asking many key questions and carefully clarifying all his rulings on objections and the case.

Unfortunately based on the elements of the Arizona manifestation law he had little choice as he discussed in detail in finding Monica guilty because of 1 or 2 key elements of the law were met by the City Prosecutor.

There were 3 key factual issues where there was minor disagreement between the perceptions of the undercover officers testimony and Monica.

1) Asking if a cop - This Monica easily rebutted. Cops were on patrol doing their roundups for Project Rose and Monica was in the area they were searching for prostitutes to fill their quotas to bring to Bethany Bible Church. Monica testified she wore a very short outfit and breasts above the nipple were showing as she was walking. Monica says she said "your a cop" vs the cops recalling she asked "are you a cop" Monica easily won this element by saying she then warned him about the sting in response to saying he was not a cop. So this element was no issue, Monica won.

2) The big one she lost on and maybe blame the attorney for not addressing it - as the judge pointed out - was the cops testimony not refuted was Monica grabbing the cops groin area. She admitted this without any explanation why. Therefore the judge had no choice but to include this as un refuted evidence that meets one of the "manifestations" in the Phoenix law.

3) About split on the issue the cop said Monica made him touch her breasts vs Monica denying. The judge took this as a factor for the State but I think he may have errored since Monica denied it. Or her testimony that she wore a very revealing top but no nipples showed vs. cops saying she pulled down her top to expose her breasts.

As the judge pointed out (as did Monica's attorney) that when there is conflicting testimony absent any discrediting evidence, the cop's testimony is given NO more weight than the defendant.

But the State basically established element 2 that she grabbed his groin area which she admitted to.

In addition the judge had to take into account, her prior prostitution conviction and she had motivation to alter her story because she faced the mandatory 30 days in jail.

IDEA FOR APPEAL - but in the testimony it was brought out that there were about 14 squads in his area rounding up the number they needed to take to Project Rose. This might be a factor in the bias of thought of the officer.

The judge was very lenient where he could be. He had no choice than 30 days in jail since was her 2nd offence it is the mandatory minimum on the 2nd offense. He sentenced to the minimum he could under the law. He also reduced the statuary fine where he does have discretion from $2500 to only $150 due to her going to ASU and not having much income. He says he rarely reduces the fine but has the authority to do so.

He also has to asses jail costs which for 30 days in jail is $2540.70, but due to her student status only is charging her $350.

He also wanted her sentence to not interfere with her ASU classes and after discussing with Monica set the sentencing arrangement date for May 28th as to not interfere with her studies.

I assume Monica will appeal and has 14 days to file a notice of appeal, then the hard stuff comes for the attorneys in the Appeal Memorandum etc. I suspect the Appeal will take at least a year but the judge indicated he would stay the sentence pending appeal assuming she appeals. The concern is this could be very costly in legal fees - don't know if a concern or not.

Obviously the case had nothing to do with "walking while Trans"... there were no racial or Trans issues involved.

Other notes
The ACLU attorney who joined in Monica's motion did a great job arguing the constitutional issues related to the vagueness of the Phoenix Manifestation law. But as the judge pointed out he is here to be a finder of facts related to the city of Phoenix manifestation law and not the Constitutional issues which can be raised on Appeal.

I have zillions more of notes and comments but thought I would get out this brief summary.

The gay/trans community is going wild with lies that it was all about being Transexual. That clearly had nothing to do with the case but social media with their zillions of supporters worldwide is going crazy with the "walking while trans" fantasy that had nothing to do with the case. But it makes a great cause whether any facts behind it or not.

The issue is the law which is the only issue to address on appeal.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hutchison on 04/12/2014 at 1:30 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2016 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation