PHOENIX (CN) – An Arizona man seeking to clear his name of a decades-old murder conviction asked a state appeals court Thursday to allow him access to records he says could reveal a conspiracy against him.
Louis Taylor — who spent 42 years in a state prison on murder charges dating back to 1970 Pioneer Hotel Fire in Tucson, Arizona – says Pima County District Attorney Laura Conover planned to exonerate him in the light of new evidence but changed course after she was threatened with imprisonment by other lawyers.
Taylor requested records from an August 2022 executive session of the Pima County Supervisors that he believed would prove the conspiracy, but that request was denied in state court.
In a Tucson courtroom Thursday morning, Taylor’s attorney, Max Lanerd, argued that a reasonable inference could be drawn that the supervisors on Aug. 2, 2022 violated public meeting and open house laws in two ways. He said the supervisors did not stick to the stated purpose of the executive session, which was to get legal advice on Taylor’s civil suit against the county, and instead discussed Taylor’s state conviction and Conover’s intent to oust him.
Lanerd said the county’s refusal to produce the minutes from the executive session is enough evidence that the laws were not followed.
“If a party like Mr. Taylor presents facts that create a reasonable inference that the executive session was improper, then it’s up to a public body like the county to prove compliance,” he told a three-judge appeals panel.
Court documents show that Conover had prepared a press release announcing Taylor’s exoneration, but it was never released. Instead, Conover issued a different statement refusing to exonerate Taylor the day after the executive session was held.
Judge Karl Eppich was not convinced that time alone is enough to suggest the supervisors discussed punishment at the meeting.
“You’re looking for a conclusion drawn from the timeline,” Eppich said. “Help me get past the question of whether or not this is mere speculation as opposed to a reasonable conclusion from the evidence.”
Lanerd said a former district attorney emailed supervisors months ago advising them of the political and financial risks of exonerating Taylor. An administrator apparently responded to that email and assured the sender that those issues would be discussed.
Because the only attorney listed as participating is the minutes from the open portion of the meeting not working on the civil suit, Lanerd said it would be impossible for supervisors to get advice from that attorney on the civil suit once in executive session.
“Did they retire to another room?” Eppich asked, still unconvinced. “Is it possible that a second lawyer was sitting there waiting for them knowing this was on the agenda?”
If that were true, Lanerd responded, the county should have introduced that evidence in response to Taylor’s motion for summary judgment, but it didn’t.
Judge Christopher O’Niel opined that if a lawyer associated with the civil case was only there for the executive session, then his name might not have been listed in the open meeting minutes anyway.
Even if an attorney for the civil case was present, Lanerd said, that doesn’t mean the supervisors didn’t go beyond the scope of the meeting by discussing the criminal case and Taylor’s possible exoneration.
The judges struggled to separate the two.
“How can legal advice on a federal lawsuit not include discussion of the underlying criminal aspect of the case?” Judge Peter Eckerstrom asked.
Lanerd said it would violate the open meetings law if there was any conversation about the pros and cons of Taylor’s exoneration.
“Advice on how to pressure the district attorney would go beyond that,” he said.
Defending Conover and the county, Acedo said it’s unreasonable to assume a lawyer unrelated to the civil case was present at the executive session just because she was in open session. Furthermore, he said the inference is drawn because he himself, who represents the county in the civil case, was also present at the open meeting.
O’Niel questioned why Acedo did not make this clear to the trial judge, suggesting that the simple fact would have barred the entire appeal.
Acedo said that he did not find it necessary because the participation in the open meeting is irrelevant to that of the executive session.
“At the end, I would sign a statement saying I was in the building as well,” he said.
If that’s not enough, Acedo said it’s clear the stated purpose of the meeting wasn’t violated because it was to “get legal advice from her attorney in the Taylor lawsuit,” which it did.
He said both the minutes of the meeting and Conover’s deposition would prove that Conover was not pressured in any way not to exonerate Taylor. In fact, he said Conover had already decided not to do so before the executive session took place.
Lanerd said it doesn’t matter if Conover had already decided whether the meeting still violated the law.
The panel did not say when it will rule.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
