Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

I. Osuna, Deputy
9/9/2019 4:56:24 PM
Filing ID 10861137

RACHEL H MITCHELL
ACTING MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

Tracey L Gleason
Deputy County Attorney
Bar ID#: 031444
301 West Jefferson, 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 506-5999
mcaosvd@mcao.maricopa.gov
MCAO Firm#: 00032000
Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, CR2019-001522-001

Plaintiff, STATE'S COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT

PLAN
vs.
(Assigned to the Honorable Katherine M
MELISSA SUZANNE DIEGEL, Cooper, Div. CRJ16)

Defendant.

Pursuant to the Administrative Order re: Complex Case Designation and

Management undersigned counsel submits this Case Management Plan and states the

following:

1. Trial Date: Not set.

2. Length of Trial and Number of Witnesses: Approximately eight weeks and thirty

witnesses for the State.

Brief Summary of Alleged Facts:

 Between 2011-2014, the State alleges that the defendant committed medical child

abuse on the minor victims by falsifying medical symptoms and diagnoses to obtain

unnecessary medical treatment.

3. Management Conference Dates: Every 30 or 45 days

4. Discovery Production Schedule:

a. State: Discovery is ongoing. The State has disclosed approximately 10,000

pages of documents thus far.

b. Defense: The Defense has not yet provided discovery.

5. Witness Interview Schedule: To be determined.

6. List of Motions Needing Evidentiary Hearing (Length of Hearing): None at this

time. See below for other outstanding Motions.

7. Schedule for Filing Motions, Responses and Replies: Pursuant to the Rules.

8. Schedule for Motions in Limine: Pursuant to the Rules.

9. Expert Witness Issues (Dates for Defense to Disclose Experts and Opinions, if

different than date called for in Rule 15): None at this time.

10. Special Investigative Needs: None

11. General Status of Plea Negotiations: No plea offer at this time. The State

anticipates one will be forthcoming shortly.

12. Settlement Conference Date: None set.

13. Interpreter Needs: None.

14. Other issues: The State filed a Reply to the Defendant's Response objecting to a

motion for protective order concerning the discovery yet to be produced. In that reply,

the State inadvertently did not redact one of the victim's names in the attached court

orders from the severance hearing. The State respectfully requests that the court seal

the reply to protect the name of the minor victim.

Additionally, the State was notified by Jail Intel that the defendant was discussing

possible dissemination of the discovery materials with third parties. The State

immediately ordered the jail calls and video visits. Upon review of the calls, the State

believes that Jail Intel was referencing the following exchange:

Defendant: He would have to have a copy and I would have to have

a copy not to mention the fact doesn't it seem a little weird that they
would hold the documents for 5 and 1/2 years and all of a sudden
they are going to produce it when I am in here with a hundred other
women? And all of a sudden they are okay with everyone seeing it
when before they didn't want anyone to see it. I think that is awfully
fucking weird. And in fact I was surprised as shit, because
considering in the lower courts they did everything under the sun to
keep that from me including the court of appeals and the supreme
court they had no legal right to keep that from me. Now all of a
sudden they produce it so documents can be taken out of my box
when I have no way of securing it safely? So if the internet gets these
documents I'm gonna be blamed? You put me in her with a hundred
and women didn't allow me to prepare for trial.

Steve Reynolds (Defendant's significant other): Whoa whoa whoa

wait a minute... wait a minute honey there ain't nothing saying you
can't put anything on the internet.

Defendant: I don't know what the rules of criminal court are but I do
know the public has a right to know and since there is fraud involved
it makes it very different.
 In call number 246, the defendant tells the person she is speaking to "... I give my

permission for my evidence that I have on the outside to be used in any way necessary.

If they won1 t let it in court it's going to be out online or in the media ... l can't wait for

the auditory evidence to come out and burn their asses.. ". It should be noted that the

defendant still apparently has possession of the medical records pertaining to the

minor victims.

In call number 238, the defendant agrees with her sister that there are "more

people on the team who need to see (the discovery)". The defendant states, "Let me

get the documents into my hands and we will go from there... "

The State believes the Court needs to further address the defendant's access to

discovery and ensure necessary protective orders are in place to protect the minor

victims' personal information.

On video call dated June 23, 2019 at 7:59 pm, the defendant references the fact

that she has "150 audio recordings" relating to the case, that she made while the

severance trial was ongoing. These apparently include recordings of the minor victims.

Any recorded statements made by the witnesses in the possession of the defendant

(that were not disclosed by the State) must be provided pursuant to Arizona Rules of

Criminal Procedure, Rule 15.2(c). The State is requesting a copy of these recorded

statements.
 Submitted September ---' 2019.

RACHEL H MITCHELL
ACTING MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

BY: ,::_-c u--�

/s/ Tracey L Gleason
Deputy County Attorney

Copy mailed/delivered September_, 2019, to:

The Honorable Katherine M Cooper

Judge of the Superior Court

Zachary V. Pierce
620 W Jackson St Ste 4015
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Attorney for Defendant

Jamie Balson
Attorney for Victims

BY: ---i-.,:_� U,__.,

/s/ Tracey L Gleason
Deputy County Attorney

tg