Day 14 of Kyrsten Sinema’s Refusal to Release List of Murderers She Defended

Arizona Republican Party

Sinema Not Yet Responding to Letter of Inquiry into Her List of Clients

PHOENIX – With just two weeks until election day, Kirsten Sinema’s campaign is still refusing to release the list of murderers she claimed to defend.

Kyrsten Sinema, running for Congress in Arizona’s Ninth District, once proudly boasted about her work as a “criminal defense attorney who represents murderers.” (Shawn Macomber, “The Marginalized Mainstream,” The American Spectator, June 14, 2006)

Today marks Day 14 of her receipt of a hand-delivered letter from Arizona Republican Party Chairman Tom Morrissey asking her to release her client list, including the murderers she claimed to represent. No response has been received.

“If you run for Congress, you shouldn’t be running from your past.” said Tom Morrissey, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party which is headquartered in Arizona’s Ninth Congressional District. “Sinema is trying to erase her past and pretend she’s someone else, and we think voters simply want to know more about the deeds she’s done than she’s willing to reveal.”

Below is the letter Morrissey sent to Ms. Sinema asking her to stop hiding her client list.

October 9, 2012

Ms. Kyrsten Sinema
123 E Baseline Rd. D-202
Tempe, AZ 85283

Dear Kyrsten:

As the former Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal for Arizona, I strongly believe it is important for the people of Arizona and this Congressional district to know whom you stand with.

In a 2006 interview with American Spectator magazine, and while a member of the Arizona Legislature, you proudly boasted that you were a “criminal defense attorney who represents murderers.”

Your voting record is also troubling.

In 2009, you were one of five state representatives to vote against a bill (SB 1253) that adds drive by shooting to the list of specified felonies that are subject to the felony murder classification. This measure was passed in bipartisan fashion 50-5.

In 2007, you were the Prime Sponsor of HB 2278, a bill to end the death penalty for murderers and rapists. Luckily your bill wasn’t passed.

In light of your pronouncements of support for murderers I ask you to immediately release your entire client list of any murderers you have represented or currently represent.

Most sincerely,


Tom Morrissey
Arizona Republican Party



  1. You are missing the big issue here. says:

    The reason she won’t release the list is that she never actually appeared in a court of law except as a defendant. The defense of someone accused of homicide is one of the most difficult jobs in all of law. Do you really think Arizona or any other state would entrust that to someone with a couple of years experience after law school? And on her “off” time when she is not being a legislator? Come, come now.

    Here’s a way to check. The Maricopa Superior Court runs things in Phoenix, where Ms. Sinema supposedly defended persons accused of homicide.

    Check the number of documents related to Ms. Sinema here:

    Sorry. No results found.

    Now try a real homicide attorney, Mr. Bruce Blumberg

    100 results

    Try another one, Mr. Richard Suzuki

    100 results

    She’s just a load of hot air.

    Also, consider this. She is not entirely lacking in courtroom experience. You can find out any person’s courtroom experience of another sort simply by checking out another vital little resource.

    Now, you have to get past this thing by typing in a code, but once inside you can then type “Sinema” on the first blank, “Kyrsten” on the second blank. Here’s the results:

    1. M-0741-3308174 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 6/13/2005, disp. date, 9/16/2005
    2. M-0741-3413806 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 1/11/2006, disp. date, 2/13/2006
    3. M-0741-3848773 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 7/18/2008, disp. date, 8/24/2008
    4. J-1103-SD-2009002031 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 7/2/2009, disp. date, 4/22/2010
    5. M-0741-4035928 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 7/24/2009, disp. date, 4/13/2010
    6. M-0741-4083131 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 10/21/2009, disp. date, 2/13/2006
    7. M-1347-PR-2009012548 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, DISMISSED, filed 12/1/2009, disp. date, 3/16/2010
    8. M-0741-4120345 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 1/6/2010, disp. date, 4/13/2010
    9. M-0741-4158048 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 3/17/2010, disp. date, 3/18/2010
    10. M-0741-4196794 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 6/4/2010, disp. date, 7/21/2010
    11. M-1347-PR-2010011339 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, DISMISSED, filed 10/13/2010, disp. date, 2/7/2011
    12. M-0741-4246400 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 9/20/2010, disp. date, 1/28/2011
    13. M-0741-4291294 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 12/29/2010, disp. date, 2/1/2011
    14. M-0741-4443735 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 11/16/2011, disp. date, 3/12/2012
    15. M-0741-4588867 KYRSTEN SINEMA DEFENDANT, guilty, filed 10/5/2012, disp. date, NOT DETERMINED

    Note the interesting file on case # 4.

    Date Description Party
    7/22/2011 FARE: COLLECTIONS LTR TYPE 31 D 1
    4/22/2010 FUND: TIME PYMT $20 JCEF D 1
    4/22/2010 INFO: ASSIGNED TO FARE D 1
    4/22/2010 FUND: STATE PH ENF CE SURCH D 1
    4/22/2010 FUND: FARE FEE SPEC COLL D 1
    4/22/2010 FUND: JP RECOVERY FEE PE 84% D 1
    7/31/2009 CAL: ARRAIGNMENT

    They had to serve her with some sort of a legal document! That ever happen to you or anyone you know? & she’s an attorney, one who should be able to take care of everything much faster than the rest of us.

    Also consider this. When you get the occasional speeding ticket, how fast do you turn in the fine? Ever take you more than two months? Maybe the court is just very slow at recording the disposition dates, but it would then be odd for it to spit out a guilty verdict disposition within a day, as with case # 9. There is something very, very odd in all of this.

    • You are missing the big issue here. says:

      The final disposition date on case # 6 is 4/13/2010.

      Also they have two disposition dates listed, one below the filing date, the other below the line. The one below the line is used in every case, which is usually later than the one above the line.

      Very, very odd stuff. See if you can figure it out.

      To give you an idea of just how strange this is, take a look at Andrew Tobin, the speaker of the house.

      M-0747-TR-2005014692 ANDREW LAWRENCE TOBIN DEFENDANT 05/1957 PHOENIX, AZ 85020 Glendale Municipal
      M-0741-4050788 ANDREW LAWRENCE TOBIN DEFENDANT 05/1957 PHOENIX, AZ 850293809 Phoenix Municipal
      J-0302-TR-200505006 ANDREW MICHAEL TOBIN DEFENDANT 05/1986 PAULDEN, AZ 86334 Williams Justice
      J-1102-TR-200602696 ANDREW MICHAEL TOBIN DEFENDANT 05/1986 PAULDEN, AZ 86344 Casa Grande Justice
      M-1347-PR-2011009613 ANDREW MICHAEL TOBIN DEFENDANT 06/1958 PAULDEN, AZ 86334 Prescott Valley Municipal

      You can see there are three Andrew Tobins, two with two judgments, one with one, about what you would expect (I’d likely turn up with five or so, but that’s a wild guess because I don’t keep track of that stuff).

      Andrew M. Tobin (born June 27, 1958), so he had only one judgment. Here it is:

      Citation Count Description Disp. Date Disposition
      C000000011014251 1 LOCAL CHARGE 9/1/2011 DEFENSIVE DRIVING/DISM NO MVD

      Now in his case, the length of time between the filing ( 6/23/2011) & the disposition, 9/1/2011, is quite reasonable. It can take a while to get around to watching the stupid defensive driving stuff. Also, just checked into all FIVE Tobin matters. In all cases, the disposition date above the line is the same as the one below the line, plus or minus a day. This suggests some really, really odd stuff.

      • You are missing the big issue here. says:

        One other mistake. There is no verdict yet on case number 15. So the word “guilty” should not have appeared. It is not at all a trivial charge, for she is charged with going over 15 mph above the speed limit in a school zone.

  2. Bruce Freiberg says:

    Rule 1.6(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct reads: A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the consent is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted or required by paragraphs (b), (c), or (d), or ER 3.3(a)(3).

    Given this, Sinema is not allowed to reveal the names of her current or former clients. One would think that at least one of you nitwits who keep crowing about the refusal to reveal her clients names would be aware of this fact.

Speak Your Mind