Arson, murder convict denied Arizona meeting records he says could clear his name

TUCSON, Ariz. (CN) —  An Arizona man seeking to clear his name of a decades-old murder conviction was again denied access to Pima County records he says could uncover a conspiracy against him.

In an opinion issued Tuesday night, the Arizona Court of Appeals found Louis Taylor failed to prove beyond speculation that county supervisors went beyond the stated purpose of a 2022 executive session and illegally discussed whether to vacate his conviction.

Taylor, who spent 42 years in a state prison on murder charges stemming from the 1970 Pioneer Hotel Fire in Tucson, Arizona, says Pima County Attorney Laura Conover planned to exonerate him in light of new evidence but reversed course after she was threatened with disbarment by other attorneys.

Court documents suggest Conover had prepared a press release months earlier but decided not to release it, instead announcing his conviction would not be vacated just one day after the executive session on Aug. 2, 2022.

Affirming a Pima County judge’s denial of Taylor’s motion for partial summary judgment, a three-judge panel agreed the coincidental timing is not enough to prove Conover was pressured not to vacate in that executive session.

“The Pima County Attorney’s Office’s decision not to file a motion to vacate Taylor’s convictions also does not suggest that the board addressed matters beyond the scope of the notice during the executive session, especially in the absence of any reason to believe that an attorney involved in the criminal case attended the executive session,” Judge Christopher O’Neil wrote in a 14-page opinion. “To the extent the timing of the Pima County Attorney’s Office’s announcement raised any question, the county attorney testified in her deposition that she had made her decision a month earlier.”

The stated purpose of the executive session was to receive legal advice on Taylor’s civil lawsuit seeking to expunge his conviction. Taylor noted the only attorney listed as present at the public session was a deputy county attorney who did not represent the county in the federal case. So, Taylor inferred her presence was instead to discuss his criminal case.

The judges were not convinced that Taylor’s speculation amounted to anything more than just that.

“The public session minutes do not reasonably suggest either the participation of the deputy county attorney or the absence of an attorney for the federal case during the executive session,” O’Neil wrote.

Participants in the public meeting weren’t all named during the opening roll call but instead were introduced when relevant to an item on the agenda. If an attorney on Taylor’s federal case was present, no evidence suggests they would have been named in the public meeting minutes.

“It would be identified, if anywhere, in the executive session minutes,” O’Neil wrote. “There is, therefore, nothing to infer from the absence in the minutes of the name of an attorney associated with the federal case.”

Conversely, the deputy county attorney’s presence at the public session does not imply she participated in the executive session.

Even if the session did touch on his criminal case, the panel said that doesn’t mean it went beyond its stated purpose. Legal advice regarding a federal lawsuit to expunge a conviction would reasonably be impacted by the potential for his criminal case to be vacated at the state level, the judges said.

While the panel denied Taylor access to minutes and recordings of the executive session in accordance with A.R.S. § 38-431.03(B), it found the trial court may have gone too far in denying him access to the attendance list.

“Based on the same statutory language, however, the court incorrectly determined that the identity of attendees at an executive session is also confidential,” O’Neil wrote. “Confidentiality under § 38-431.03(B) is extended only to minutes and discussions. Answering an interrogatory about attendance at an executive session need not require disclosure of confidential minutes, and attendance is not a discussion.

“Because a public body needs to explain the reason for the executive session, the panel reasoned it’s likely that attendees would be known to the public ahead of time anyway. There is therefore no reason to redact that information later,” O’Neil continued.

Though the attendance list is a public record, Arizona courts have “significant discretion” in deciding discovery requests in special actions, and “only in rare situations will discovery be justified in special action proceedings in the superior court.”

Typically, discovery is permitted only when there is a “material issue of fact.”

“Thus, although we vacate the portion of the court’s ruling denying Taylor’s request for leave to serve the interrogatory, we remand for the court to determine, in its discretion, whether Taylor’s action has raised a material issue of fact,” O’Neil wrote. “And, if so, whether a special order allowing an interrogatory concerning the identities of the executive session attendees is appropriate under the circumstances.”

Neither side replied to a request for comment.

Follow @JournalistJoeAZ