Legal Opinion
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided December 20, 2011No. CR-11-0040-PRPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BERCH, Chief Justice.
¶ 1 Any person “interested directly or indirectly in [a] matter” is disqualified from serving as a juror for that case. Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 21-211(2) (2002). The question before the Court is whether a peace officer employed by the law enforcement agency that investigated a criminal ease has such a disqualifying interest. 1 The answer is yes.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 Douglas Lee Eddington was charged as an accomplice in the murder of the son of a Tucson police officer. During vow dire, one potential juror stated that he was employed as a deputy…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Irvin v. DowdSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Taylor v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-OrozcoArizona Supreme Court · 2017
- State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna ValenzuelaArizona Supreme Court · 2018
- State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo MendozaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- James 306791 v. ShinnDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2023
- Jamie Clem v. Pinal County, Pinal County Sheriff Mark LambCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2025
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.