Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00478/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00478-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 Before the Court is Respondents’ motion seeking an order prohibiting members of 

Petitioner’s legal team from contacting the victims in this case and directing that any such 

contact be initiated through counsel for Respondents. (Doc. 12.) 

 In support of their request, Respondents cite provisions of state and federal law, 

including A.R.S. § 13–4433(B), which provides that “[t]he defendant, the defendant’s 

attorney or an agent of the defendant shall only initiate contact with the victim through 

the prosecutor’s office,” and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which gives state 

crime victims in federal habeas cases “the right to be treated with fairness and with 

respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Respondents 

contend that protections offered under § 13–4433(B) are encompassed by the CVRA. 

 Petitioner opposes the motion, arguing that the provisions of § 13–4433(B) do not 

apply in this federal case and are not necessary to protect the rights enumerated in the 

CVRA. (Doc. 17.) In another capital habeas case, Sansing v. Ryan, No. 11-CV-1035-

PHX-SRB (D. Ariz.), the court considered and rejected these arguments. The court 

Derek Don Chappell, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-00478-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-00478-SPL Document 19 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ordered the petitioner to obtain consent through the respondents’ counsel before 

contacting a victim and, in the event a victim did not consent, ordered briefing on the 

applicability of Arizona’s victims’ rights laws. In denying the petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration of the order, the court explained that its “directive requiring Petitioner to 

obtain consent from Respondents’ counsel to contact victims furthers the rights to dignity 

and privacy set forth in § 3771(a)(8). It is a reasonable limitation that does not unfairly 

disadvantage Petitioner.” (Id., Doc. 29.) 

 This Court agrees with the reasoning in Sansing. Whether or not § 13–4433(B) 

directly applies to these proceedings, the mechanism it establishes furthers the goal of 

respecting a crime victim’s dignity and privacy without unduly burdening Petitioner. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Order Precluding Defense Team 

from Contacting Victims (Doc. 12) is granted. No person who is defined as a victim in 

this matter pursuant to Arizona law shall be contacted by anyone working with or on 

behalf of Petitioner or Petitioner’s counsel unless the victim, through counsel for 

Respondents, has consented to such contact. If consent is not provided and Petitioner 

nonetheless believes contact is necessary, Petitioner may file a motion with the Court 

explaining the necessity for such contact and further addressing the applicability of 

Arizona’s provisions governing the rights of victims. 

 Dated this 21st day of July, 2015.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00478-SPL Document 19 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 2