Arson, murder convict asks Arizona appeals court for meeting records to clear his name

TUCSON, Ariz. (CN) —  An Arizona man seeking to clear his name of a decades-old murder conviction asked a state appeals court Thursday to allow him access to records he says could uncover a conspiracy against him.

Louis 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.

Taylor requested records from an August 2022 executive session of the Pima County Supervisors that he believed would prove the conspiracy, but that request was denied in state court.

In a Tucson courtroom Thursday afternoon, Taylor’s attorney Max Larnerd argued a reasonable inference can be made that the supervisors on August 2, 2022, violated public meeting and open door laws in two ways. He said the supervisors didn’t adhere to the stated purpose of the executive session, which was to receive legal advice on Taylor’s civil lawsuit against the county, and instead discussed Taylor’s state conviction and Conover’s intent to overturn it.

Larnerd said the county’s refusal to produce minutes from the executive session is evidence enough that the laws weren’t followed.

“If a party like Mr. Taylor presents facts creating a reasonable inference that the executive session was improper, then it’s upon the public body like the county to prove compliance,” he told a three-judge appeals panel.

Court documents show that Conover had prepared a press release announcing Taylor’s exoneration, but it was never released. Instead, Conover released a different statement declining to exonerate Taylor one day after the executive session was held.

Judge Karl Eppich was unconvinced that the timing alone was enough to suggest that the supervisors discussed the conviction in the meeting.

“You’re asking for a drawn inference from the timeline,” Eppich said. “Help me get past the question of whether or not this is mere speculation as opposed to a reasonable inference from the evidence.”

Larnerd said a former county attorney emailed the supervisors months earlier advising them of the political and financial risks of exonerating Taylor. An administrator apparently replied to that email and assured the sender that those issues would be discussed.

Because the only attorney listed as an attendee is the minutes from the open portion of the meeting was not working on the civil lawsuit, Larnerd said it would have been impossible for the supervisors to receive advice from that attorney on the civil lawsuit once in executive session.

“Did they withdraw to another room?” Eppich asked, still unconvinced. “Is it possible that there was a second attorney sitting back there waiting for them, knowing that this was on the agenda?”

If that were true, Larnerd replied, the county should have produced that evidence in response to Taylor’s motion for summary judgment, but didn’t.

Judge Christopher O’Neil opined that if an attorney associated with the civil case were there only for the executive session, then his name might not have been listed in the open meeting minutes anyway.

Even if an attorney for the civil case were present, Larnerd said, that doesn’t mean the supervisors didn’t go beyond the scope of the meeting by discussing the criminal case and Taylor’s potential exoneration.

The judges struggled to separate the two.

“How could legal advice on the federal lawsuit not by definition include discussion of the underlying criminal aspect of the case?” Judge Peter Eckerstrom asked.

Larnerd said it would violate the open meeting law if any conversation were had about the pros and cons of exonerating Taylor.

“Advice concerning how to pressure the county attorney would go beyond that,” he said.

Defending Conover and the county, Acedo said it’s unreasonable to assume that an attorney unrelated to the civil case was present for the executive session just because she was at the open meeting. Furthermore, he said the inference falls apart because he himself, who represents the county in the civil case, was also present at the open meeting.

O’Neil asked why Acedo didn’t make that clear to the trial judge, suggesting that simple fact would have prevented the entire appeal.

Acedo said he didn’t find it necessary because attendance at the open meeting is irrelevant to that of the executive session.

“In hindsight, I’d sign a declaration saying that I was also in the building,” he said.

If that’s not enough, Acedo said it’s clear that the stated purpose of the meeting was not violated because it was to “obtain legal advice from its counsel in the Taylor lawsuit,” which is what happened.

He said both the meeting minutes and Conover’s deposition would prove that Conover was in no way pressured not to exonerate Taylor. In fact, he said Conover had already decided not to do so before the executive session was held.

Larnerd said it doesn’t matter whether Conover had already made up her mind if the meeting still violated the law.

The panel didn’t indicate when it will rule.

Follow @JournalistJoeAZ