Supreme Court of Arizona , Decided

December 07, 2005

In re: James Joseph Hamm

By: Leidi Abegail Chua Bayudan

 FACTS:
• Hamm was sentenced to life imprisonment
with no possibility of parole for the next
twenty five years (25 years).

• Prior to his sentence, Hamm was separated

from his wife and son and supported himself
by selling and using marijuana, other drugs
and drinking alcohol.
• The crime he committed for his sentence:
MURDER of Morley and Staples

• While in prison, Hamm exhibited good

conduct and later on became a model
prisoner earning him a conditioned parole.

• In 2001, from the conditioned parole, he was

absolutely discharged
• While on parole, he graduated from Arizona
State College of Law.

• In 1999, he passed the Arizona Bar

• In 2004, filed his Character and Fitness Report

with the Committtee
In its report, the Committee stated that, in reaching its conclusions, it
considered the following:
• Hamm’s unlawful conduct, which included the
commission of two violent “execution style” murders
and his testimony as to the facts surrounding the
murders

• Hamm’s omissions on his Application and his

testimony in explaining his failure to disclose all
required information.

• Hamm’s neglect of his financial responsibilities and/or

violation of a longstanding child support court order
and his testimony as to his failure to comply with the
court order.

• Hamm’s mental or emotional instability impairing his

ability to perform the functions of an attorney including
his testimony as to any diagnosis and treatment.
 ISSUE:

Whether or not Hamm can be admitted to the

Bar.
 HELD:
• No, the Supreme Court decided that Hamm failed to prove his burden
that he is of good moral character on the following grounds:

1. Hamm failed to show rehabilitation from past criminal conduct by

not accepting full responsibility for serious criminal misconduct -
Staples’ murder although he accepted responsibility for the death of
Morley.

2. Hamm was not completely up-front in his testimony to the murder

of which he claims that he only intended to rob and not to kill. This is
contrary to the facts he accepted the gun and brings it with him in the
car, shot Morley without attempting robbery and shot hit again to
ensure he is dead and shot Staples when he attempted to escape.
3. Hamm’s failure to fulfill his long overdue
obligation to support his child who he was
aware existed

4. Hamm’s failure to disclose the incident

(physical altercation), involving him and his
wife Donna, when he submitted his application
to the Committee. This incident gave rise to
Hamm being questioned by the law enforcers
which should have been reflected by Hamm in
the application.
“Because James Hamm has failed to meet his
burden of proving that he is of good moral
character, we deny his application for admission
to the State Bar of Arizona.”