Jason Zwack
Revolution skate shop, razor skate, havok clothing
[email protected]
Corpus Christi Texas
78418


This rule is perfect the way it's written.

This petition is so far beyond the sum of all negative words combined.

Matthew a Walker drafted this after the most embarrassing loss of a lifetime.

It was live streamed by the litigant who holy embarrassed Matthew Walker

With proper notice to the judge and a single mention of it being live streamed aloud, The Honor said "that's fine" not a second more spent discussing it.

As it was meant to be.

Matthew Walker has since made it his mission to punish that Gentleman and change this rule.

Not to change his game plan in the courtroom or to review his performance and try to improve on it.

Nope Matthew a walker decided that 1:22 h is the problem not his approach to his job or execution of his duties.

You see before he was obsessed with this rule being the problem. He was creating problems with with no particularized order here are some of the tactics locals complain of.

Attempting to arraign without probable cause, dodging Discovery requests at all costs, making sure the police officer is not available for any interviews or even acknowledging he is on shift, changing the name of the victim and witnesses like it is tic-tac-toe. Trying to run out 180 day clock by withholding Discovery until such time when the time will be charged to the defense.

My absolute favorite is setting conditions of release, to have no contact city employees or make phone calls to places such as the public law library, the prosecutor's office, the clerks etc.


The only reason I bring this up is because you can see the same language in his proposal for the amendments that's used for all these tricks that he's known for.

Before I point those out.

I just want to say thank you for pretending that our words matter.

I know nobody is actually putting any weight on our words.

Never the less i'm going to write it seriously anyway.

The first huge problem with his proposal, he wants to completely delete the (h) from 122.

This is going to create a huge problem constitutionally and functionally for the courts .

It is an absolute necessity to be able to quietly notify the judge. Leaving the discretion up to him whether or not to announce or not.

In Fantasyland Matthew Walker wants to claim that announcing it out loud as a request and him denying it or affirming it somehow gives him "control of his courtroom"

When in fact this actually strips him of the control he has

You can't unring the Bell if a shy victim doesn't want to be live streamed and under walkers rules you would have to announce that to her, before the start of trial.

With the judge having knowledge of a recording present he can properly diagnose the situation. Judges are literally and actually masters of reading people's reactions and judging them properly.

Matthew Walker mistakenly believes that giving the judge the option to deny anybody's request at the start of any hearing out loud is somehow giving him something he didn't have before.

It is a joke to think that a judge is not able or is somehow benefiting from a mandatory request and a verbal announcement before any hearing. If anything it is a massive under estimation of a judges capabilities.

This is not even mentioning the fact that he wants that request to not have any recourse when denied. He actually proposes that a request denied will not have a hearing on it. And no specific reasons must be stated on the record in Matt Walker's new version of 122.

I believe he says deny for any reason.

Also in this Constitution absent fantasy world he's created not only are there going to be felonious crimes within the language of the law governing recording in a courtroom but there will be no use of the denial of recording, as a defense.

When the prosecution brings charges against the person who decides to take photos and record their own proceeding.

So just to recap here. Matthew Walker would like to remove the only portion of this rule that keeps it within constitutional boundaries.

Forcing us to make that request now a mandatory verbal announcement. taking away any discretion the judge may have to proceed discreetly with recording.

While keeping intact the constitutional rights of a party and simultaneously. protect a victim's shy nature or reservations about talking and being recorded.

Also those same requests when denied by the judge. Matthew walker wants to be able to prosecute, not allowing the judges denial as a defense to the onslaught his prosecution will bring upon the party who decides to record or photograph anyway.

If Matt Walker gets his way its going to be open season for the security guards to be checking people's pockets unlawfully.

Taking away the ability for someone to trust the judges discretion and secretly notify him of what's in his pocket rather than being scared to death of a prosecution because of it. Is a trust that needs to be built between the people and their judicial officers.

It's a necessity to keep the peace in the courtroom. Matt wants it to be a melee. I'm not going to go any further I have a lot more to say about it but I really don't think you guys are even going to read this far so.

I'm not even going to proofread it. If one of you did make it this far I have a lot more to say. My email is up there danger is my middle name I mean literally it's my name Jason is the walk with danger in the middle and @gmail

Think about the people.

Liam Kyle
243 S Durkin Dr
APT 11
Springfield, IL 62704
(0061) 2102441572
[email protected]

Petition Opposing Proposed Rule Change Submitted by Mathew Walker

I write to formally oppose the petition submitted by Mathew Walker proposing changes to the current judicial rules. My opposition is based on serious constitutional and due process concerns. The proposed rule change threatens to erode fundamental legal principles, including the right to a fair and open process, and could lead to an increased lack of public trust in the judicial system.

Rather than promoting transparency and accountability, this petition appears to support a more opaque and secretive judicial structure. Courts function best when they operate in the open, subject to public scrutiny and bound by constitutional protections. Implementing rules that conceal proceedings or decisions undermines those protections and fosters a dangerous precedent for unchecked judicial discretion.

Furthermore, the tone and substance of Mr. Walker’s petition suggest an attempt to carry out a personal vendetta rather than pursue genuine reform in the public interest. Weaponizing judicial rulemaking in this way only serves to politicize the courts and damage their credibility.

Mr. Walker’s petition demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional principles and a concerning disregard for the importance of public access and procedural fairness. The rule change he proposes should be unequivocally rejected.

Respectfully,
Liam Kyle

Philip Ruiz

San Antonio, TX 78216
[email protected]


Rule 122 of the Supreme Court of Arizona as currently defined promotes transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the judicial process for all to hear. The proposed changes would provide unbalanced empowerment to those who may seek to hide unethical conduct from the court of public opinion. The poor and the disabled will be the first victims if this change but all will suffer if we cloak the court in secrecy. Accordingly all who value the rule of law and the constitutional principles the current rule protects should oppose these proposed changes to Supreme Court Rule 122.

Submitted by:
Patrick Gonzalez
[email protected]

1. A Fundamental Assault on Transparency

This response vehemently opposes the proposed amendment to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 122 and demands its immediate abolishment. The rule’s requirement for prior permission to record court proceedings is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, paving the way for a secretive, unaccountable judiciary. This fundamental constitutional flaw cannot be resolved through mere amendment; the rule itself must be eradicated.

2. The Inalienable Right to Record Public Proceedings: A Cornerstone of Accountability

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press, encompassing the right to record public officials conducting their duties in public. This right is not merely a convenience; it is the cornerstone of governmental transparency and accountability. Restricting this fundamental right is a dangerous step towards authoritarianism. Recording acts as a vital check on potential government overreach.

3. Precedent and Principle: Case Law Upholding the Public's Right to RecordAskins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018), and Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), establish the right to record matters of public interest, including government officials in public. These precedents directly challenge Rule 122's attempt to shroud court proceedings in secrecy. [Add additional relevant case law here with proper citations]. These cases underscore the inherent danger of allowing the government to control the flow of information from public proceedings.

4. Rule 122: A Direct Threat to Open Courts and Public Accountability

A. Prior Restraint: A Weapon Against Transparency

Rule 122’s prior restraint on recording is a dangerous tool of oppression, preventing the public from witnessing justice in action. This is not merely an inconvenience; it's a calculated move to stifle dissent and limit public oversight. It allows the judiciary to operate outside the watchful eye of the people, creating an environment ripe for abuse.

B. The Chilling Effect: Self-Censorship and the Erosion of Freedom

The chilling effect of Rule 122 discourages citizens from exercising their fundamental right to observe and record court proceedings. This self-censorship is a direct attack on freedom of speech and transparency. The very existence of this rule encourages a culture of fear and secrecy that undermines the democratic process.

C. Unfettered Discretion: The Path to Judicial Tyranny

Rule 122 grants judges unchecked power to deny recording requests. This arbitrary authority is ripe for abuse, allowing judges to selectively suppress information and silence criticism. This creates a system where transparency is at the whim of individual judges, leading to potential corruption and lack of accountability.

5. Transparency: The Indispensable Safeguard of Judicial Integrity

Open courts are the lifeblood of a free and democratic society. Transparency in the judiciary is not a luxury; it's a necessity. Recording court proceedings allows citizens to hold the judicial system accountable and ensures that justice is not conducted in secret. Restricting this access is a direct threat to the very foundation of our democracy.

6. Abolishing Rule 122: The Only Path to Restoring Public Trust

A. Addressing the Misguided Fear of Disruption

Concerns about disruptions are easily addressed through existing rules of decorum and contempt. Rule 122's sweeping prohibition is a disproportionate and unjustified response. This overreaction is a thinly veiled attempt to silence the public and limit their access to vital information.

B. Addressing the Baseless Fear of Witness Intimidation

Speculative concerns about witness intimidation can be addressed through reasonable guidelines, not a total ban on recording. The potential for such intimidation does not justify sacrificing the public's right to witness justice. The pursuit of transparency must not be sacrificed to unfounded fears.

C. Rule 122: A Blueprint for Secret Justice

Rule 122 is a dangerous precedent. It allows the government to operate a secret court system, shielded from public scrutiny. This facilitates a government unchecked by the people. The potential for abuse of power is immense, and the threat to our constitutional rights is clear and present. [Cite cases relevant to strict scrutiny and least restrictive means here].

7. Conclusion: A Call for Immediate Action to Preserve Constitutional Rights

This petition to amend Rule 122 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Instead of amending this dangerous rule, we must abolish it completely. Failure to do so will result in the erosion of our fundamental constitutional rights, the creation of a secret judicial system, and the silencing of the public's right to know. The court must act decisively to protect the very principles upon which our nation was founded.

Respectfully
Patrick Gonzalez
4/30/25

Pat Smith
PO Box 121
Tierra Amarilla, NM 87575


I am in strong opposition to R-25-0031 Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 122. Transparency in our court system is a must.

Subject: Opposition to Petition to Limit video recording in Courtrooms

I am writing to express my opposition to the petition filed by Matthew Walker seeking to limit video recording in courtrooms. While I understand the concerns raised regarding potential misuse of courtroom recordings, I believe that restricting video access would undermine fundamental principles of transparency and public accountability in our judicial system.
Courtroom recordings serve as a vital tool for educating the public about legal processes and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done. By allowing the public to witness court proceedings, video recordings foster trust in the judicial system and provide an opportunity for citizens to better understand the complexities of legal cases.
Moreover, the presence of cameras can encourage all participants—judges, attorneys, and witnesses—to adhere to the highest standards of professionalism, knowing that their actions are subject to public scrutiny. This accountability is essential for maintaining the integrity of our courts.
While it is important to address concerns about the misuse of recordings, such as harassment or intimidation, these issues can be mitigated through targeted measures, such as stricter guidelines on the use of recordings, rather than an outright limitation on videoing.
I urge the court to consider the broader implications of this petition and to uphold the public's right to access and understand the judicial process. Transparency is a cornerstone of democracy, and limiting video access would be a step backward in our collective pursuit of justice.
Thank you for considering my perspective on this important matter.
Sincerely,


Jeffery Scheid
AuditMyGov.com
1449 West Nine Mile Rd Ste.13 #1029
Pensacola, FL 32534
956-422-3337
[email protected]

Reply to Petition to Amend 122 (h)

It is particularly troubling that the petitioner seeking to restrict public audio broadcasting of court proceedings is the same city prosecutor who pursued charges against Lane Myers—a defendant who has publicly shared recordings of his own court hearings. These recordings, which are lawful under the current version of Rule 122(h), have exposed courtroom behavior and prosecutorial tactics to public scrutiny.

The proposed rule change appears to be a reaction to that exposure. When a government prosecutor advocates for a procedural rule that would silence defendants, suppress public observation, and insulate their own conduct from real-time accountability, it raises serious questions of motive and constitutionality.

This is a textbook example of how authority figures seek to curtail fundamental rights—not to protect victims or decorum, but to shield their own decisions from public view. The First Amendment was designed precisely to prevent this kind of official censorship under color of law.
Lane Myers, a news reporter for Freedom Productions, LLC, is currently incarcerated in the Pima County Jail without bond, following his public criticism of government officials. He faces felony charges stemming from an overbroad injunction against harassment that was filed by the Petitioners wife functions as a prior restraint on protected speech.
The injunction prohibits Mr. Myers from making any social media posts about Ms. Shannon Walker, an employee of the University of Arizona; from posting her publicly available work contact information; and from encouraging others to contact her. These restrictions criminalize Mr. Myers’s constitutionally protected criticism of Ms. Walker, as well as, of judges and other public officials involved in issuing and enforcing the injunctions.

Mr. Myers previously published YouTube videos exposing due process violations during the injunction hearings—including procedural irregularities and false statements by Ms. Walker. These videos featured public court hearing recordings and work contact information already in the public domain. Despite this, prosecutors have charged him with felonies, even though there is no evidence of true threats, incitement, or disclosure of private personal details.

4 FAKE HEARINGS=1 FAKE INJUNCTION
(Yes that’s Unethical Prosecutor whispering in the background)
https://youtu.be/IZKfRcAD...?si=pD3OnvbG4hco68uc

NUCLEAR OPTION-MATT WALKER- TUCSON CITY PROSECUTOR
https://youtu.be/_DMTDP-M...?si=acRXy8UH-Y4lf80a

KANGAROO JUDGE BRENDAN GRIFFIN CANCELS THE 1ST AMENDMENT
https://www.youtube.com/l...?si=Hw8pWEGO__prkEMW

Under the State’s legal theory, Mr. Myers could be prosecuted indefinitely—even from prison—for any act interpreted as 'indirect contact.' This absurd result threatens not only his liberty but also broader First Amendment freedoms.

Ms. Walker is married to Tucson City Prosecutor Matthew Walker ,the Petitioner, who previously prosecuted Mr. Myers for booing during a Tucson City Council meeting—charges that were later dismissed. Mr. Walker has since assisted Pima County with the current prosecution and is now the petitioner requesting the Arizona Supreme Court to amend Rule 122 to restrict audio broadcasting of court proceedings. This proposed rule change directly targets the exact activity—lawful court audio publication—that exposed official misconduct. The timing and content of the petition raise serious concerns of retaliatory censorship and abuse of power.

Mr. Myers’s case is a cautionary tale: a journalist and citizen is jailed for exposing government actions and speaking critically about public officials. The First Amendment exists to prevent this. Criminalizing such speech strikes at the heart of the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government.

LANE MYERS EATS A PROSECUTOR- MATTHEW WALKER- TUCSON CITY PROSECUTOR
https://www.youtube.com/l...?si=T9nOYEONWuif8DJe

In Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), the Ninth Circuit affirmed that there is a First Amendment right to record public officials in public spaces. Though this case did not involve a courtroom specifically, its reasoning applies to all public government activities, including open court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit also struck down vague restrictions on expressive activity in Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002), emphasizing that viewpoint-neutral and narrowly tailored restrictions are essential. Limitations on audio recording that rely on speculation or discomfort rather than clear disruption likely fail this test.

The right to record and disseminate information is not a standalone right—it is a necessary corollary to the rights of free speech and a free press. In Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), and Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3rd Cir. 2017), courts emphasized that recording public officials is a vital tool for holding government accountable. Audio broadcasting of court proceedings fulfills the same democratic function. In Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Court clarified that even content-neutral restrictions on speech must serve a substantial government interest and be narrowly tailored. Courts may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, but they cannot issue vague or overly broad bans on public access and communication tools.

Any restriction on courtroom audio broadcasting must be supported by specific, on-the-record findings demonstrating an articulable risk to trial fairness, safety, or order—not generalized discomfort with public scrutiny. Audio recording and broadcasting of public court proceedings are protected by the First Amendment and essential to an open justice system. Judges may regulate such activity only in rare circumstances where demonstrable harm outweighs the public’s right to observe, not some permission seeking exercise that is wholly tyrannical. Broad or vague restrictions are constitutionally infirm and should be opposed.
The rule change proposed by Unethical City Prosecutor, Matt Walker, who is actively assisting in the prosecution of investigative journalist Lane Myers, must be understood in light of the ongoing criminal case. Mr. Myers, a journalist and owner of Freedom Productions LLC, has published multiple audio recordings and videos of his own court hearings, exposing prosecutorial conduct and judicial inconsistencies. These materials—lawfully obtained and constitutionally protected—have generated significant public interest. Notice Laura Conover’s Office thinks this is a great plan too. That’s who has him in jail with NO BOND for criticism of State Actors in violation of their Loyalty Oaths.

It is no coincidence that Mr. Walker, having been subject to scrutiny in those recordings, is now seeking a procedural rule that would effectively bar the very practice that brought his conduct to light. This amounts to a form of pretextual censorship—an attempt to use judicial rulemaking not to promote courtroom order, but to shield public officials from lawful, audio-based accountability.
The disclosure rules have been described as a shield, not a sword.
https://apaac.ce21.com/it...e-discontents-599799

Mr. Myers’s case details how the prosecution has escalated in parallel with his exposure of government misconduct. It alleges that multiple felony charges stem directly from Mr. Myers’s publication of court audio and commentary about those same public officials. Judge Brendan Griffin has already found on the record that these recordings are First Amendment protected. Yet now, Mr. Walker is attempting to bypass that ruling by rewriting Rule 122 to give judges broad power to suppress similar recordings without such findings. If adopted, this amendment would chill not just Mr. Myers’s speech, but the speech of any citizen seeking to document public court proceedings—an outcome fundamentally incompatible with constitutional norms.

Joshua Gray / This is a Public Service
1648 Taylor Rd. #471, Port Orange, Fl 32128
248-453-7708
[email protected]

Mark Brown Tucson AZ. Petition to amend rule 122.
[email protected]


I strongly oppose this amendment to take away rights of people and transparency from our courts. This petition by Tucson City Prosecutor Mattew Walker does not even follow A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 28. (4) Petion Requirements. (A) Form and Contents. A rule petition may be accomplished by supporting documents, and the petition must: (i) Explain why the court should adopt, amend, or abrogate rules; Matthew Walker does a bad job doing that. Individuals are following the rules so now we have to change the rules. (ii) Include a draft of the proposed rule changes; He doesn't. (iii) Show proposed changes to any existing rule by underlining the text to be added and striking though the text to be deleted; He doesn't. Matthew Walker don't like transparency, and he wants to hide what he is doing to the public. Supreme court rule 122 has been like this for years with the opportunity to record our court proceedings and now some individuals are using 122h to audio record court preceding and Matthew Walker does not like it. Recording court proceedings is not harassment or intimidation. Harassment and intimidation are what Mathew Walker is doing to the individuals that are recording him in court by following the rules. This Petition to Amend Rule 122 must be denied for the above reasons.

Jason, Thank you for your reply and your heart felt desire for transparency and justice especially from the Tucson City and Pima county officials. Ty, Eric ~Gov.

Eric Jones
[email protected]

John Fallo
11740 Archery Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70815
228-282-3320
[email protected]

I would like to voice my strong opposition to the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 122

The 1st:
The hierarchy of Laws places the Constitution as the highest law of the land. The First Amendment protects the people's right to free speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. The public hearings of the courts are matters of interest of the public, funded by the public, in courtrooms open to the public. It is unthinkable that members of the public would be required to request permission from government actors in the United States of America to record silently in any other public setting. Consider the First Amendment implications if the public were required to request permission to record Derek Chauvin as he squeezed the life out of George Floyd. Unethical prosecutors and judges have as strong an interest in restricting or limiting their exposure as the police did on that day, however, the police on the scene knew they could not stop the recording. Offenses every bit as egregious to life, limb, and liberty take place in our courtrooms; they just happen slower. Prosecutor Matt Walker is begging this court to turn off the recorder, to let only his voice be the narrative of the truth of the proceedings in which he loses. Remind him this is America. Any reduction in transparency allows offenses to the rule of law inside the courtrooms to happen away from the public eye and erodes the public trust in the judiciary.

Taxing a right:
The 24th Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections ruled a poll tax unconstitutional. The people have the right to a free press to disseminate matters of public interest to the public. Making recording under Rule 122 discretionary at the whims of the judges causes the public to pay ($35) for recordings of each hearing, dissuading the public from engaging in the press. If the Arizona Supreme Court passes this petition, this would become an unavoidable fee. In the Supreme Court case, Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, ruled that a tax on ink against newspapers was unconstitutional. This court changing rule 122 would be placing the right to press behind a paywall.

Transparency:
I am a member of the public who has listened to many hearings captured via the official Arizona court feed, as well as hearings recorded by participants of cases and members of the gallery recorded under Rule 122. I have heard instances in which the personal recording devices of the gallery have captured discussions between defense attorneys, prosecutors, and or judges before the official proceeding and before the official record of the proceeding began without the defendant present. These conversations may be considered ex parte. The content of these conversations could be relevant to the disposition of the case or the appeal. Without the current provision of "Prior notification" being required to record a separate hearing to "approve a request" would need to be held. The conversations before or after the official record would likely not be captured, as the hearing for the request for permission to record may not have taken place yet.

Dependability:
I have heard many official live feed hearings of cases in which there are clearly unintentional lapses in the audio feed, sometimes only seconds, sometimes minutes. I have heard cases where there is no court reporter present, with the judge explaining the hearing will be transcribed from the recording of the live feed. How will they transcribe the missing audio? How do we know what was said? Who decides which missing instant would or would not be relevant to the disposition of the case? What the recording of the death of George Floyd shows us is that no one can know the importance of a moment. The more recording devices in the courtroom, the better the dependability of the record.

Following the rules:
Inferior judges under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Supreme Court are routinely violating Rule 122 as it stands in favor of secrecy at the request of unethical prosecutors. If this court grants judges more discretion more secrecy and a corresponding erosion of confidence in the proceedings will follow.

Respectfully Submitted

John Fallo

I am also opposed to R-25-0031 Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 122. Transparency in our court system is a must.

Ken Van Meter
Pollock Pines, CA
[email protected]

Please reject this petition, as it is meant to stifle transparency in the criminal justice system.

The citizenry needs to be able to record video and audio when they are not able to attend the court hearings. We the people need to be able to see and hear what's happening in these courtrooms.

We're supposed to have the right to record in public regarding matters of public interest.

Matt Walker has the malicious intention of hiding his vindictive prosecutorial conduct. However, we must oppose this petition so that the general public can see how much unnecessary harm is being perpetrated upon people by these feelings enforcers.

Adam Howell
Email: [email protected]

I am a lawyer licensed in CA and Texas soon AZ. I find it disconcerting that the Court would even consider entertaining such a petition. This is especially so when the Court considers the appearance of impropriety involved when a prosecutor with a familial relationship with a victim in a case with an accused, Lane Myers, appears to have brought said petition. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant and I find all the arguments made in favor lack foundation, and are argumentative with zero foundation. If a judge looked closely, it’s more that obvious that the arguments in favor are opinions of a prosecutor and NOT legitimate as a matter of fact or law. I am terrified that Az appears to becoming like the Soviet Socialist Republic of CommunistFornia. Semper Fidelis, Michael Ehline, Esq., inactive US Marine. [email protected]

[quote]
Posted By Adam Howell on 01 May 2025 07:26 PM
Please reject this petition, as it is meant to stifle transparency in the criminal justice system.

The citizenry needs to be able to record video and audio when they are not able to attend the court hearings. We the people need to be able to see and hear what's happening in these courtrooms.

We're supposed to have the right to record in public regarding matters of public interest.

Matt Walker has the malicious intention of hiding his vindictive prosecutorial conduct. However, we must oppose this petition so that the general public can see how much unnecessary harm is being perpetrated upon people by these feelings enforcers.

Adam Howell
Email: [email protected]
[/quote]

Joined

The argument for the rule amendment falls flat on its face at the highest level. Removal of transparency has the DIRECT affect to RESTRICT defendants constitutional rights and transfer power to STATE.

All court proceedings are generally open to the public, including news media, as per Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.3(b)(1).

A court can close a proceeding to the public only if it finds that an open proceeding presents a clear and present danger to the DEFENDENT's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The State weaponization of removal of transparency does NOT appear is this rule, NOR SHALL it be added by this amendment.

When considering how/where Arizona Rule 122, Use of Recording Devices in a Courtroom and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.3(b)(1) are derived and modeled, reference to the US Constitution Amendment Six is justified: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and PUBLIC trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Effectively, as proposed in the petition to change the Rule 122, it restricts PUBLIC access to empower the state. What is now a presumption in favor of the defendant / public is moved to a protected space where it must be argued to re-obtain existing privilege's. More transparency to expand PUBLIC TRIAL access is the basis for faith in the judiciary system.

If one extends the look to the greater Federal Judiciary (uscourts.gov/data-news/strategic-plan-federal-judiciary) strategic plans to continue as a model in providing fair and impartial justice, it is meant to promote INCREASED TRANSPARANCY.

Issue 2- Preserving Public Trust, Confidence, and Understanding (uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/strategic-planning/strategic-plan-federal-judiciary/issue-2-preserving-public-trust-confidence-and-understanding); Excerpt "Transparency in efforts to ensure accountability for misconduct, where possible and appropriate, helps foster public trust and confidence."

Issue 5 - Harnessing Technology's Potential (uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/strategic-planning/strategic-plan-federal-judiciary/issue-5-harnessing-technologys-potential); Excerpt "For the public, technology can improve access to courts, including information about cases, court facilities, and judicial processes. "

By examining the pathway of the higher courts strategic plans, this will also guide the district and state courts policy to achieve the common goals.

I do not support the adoption of the R-25-0031 Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 122, I am strongly opposed.



Scott Burke / George Thomas
[email protected]
Sun City, AZ 85351

Please find attached petitioner's Reply in Support of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 122.

Matthew A. Walker
Principal Assistant Prosecuting City Attorney
Tucson City Attorney’s Office – Criminal Division
103 E Alameda, Suite 501
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 791-4104
AZ Bar No. 33497
[email protected]