April 21st, 2008:
The psychologist I had selected to testify during trial, Mr. Samuel George Field, was interviewed by the state prosecutor, Ms. Rachel Phipps-Yonas. I then met with Mr. Field briefly that evening at the jail. Although Mr. Field had been assigned to my case for over 1 year, we had never spoken to each other until this date. During our meeting at the jail that evening, it was agreed Mr. Field would review the case material during the day on April 22nd, and we would meet again the next evening to establish the testimony I should elicit from the accusers before Mr. Field gave his testimony.

April 22nd, 2008:
I continued jury selection at court during the day and was to meet with Mr. Field at the jail that evening. When Mr. Field attempted to enter the jail to finish our trial preparation, Mr. Field was denied access to meet with me by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. Although there was no problem with Mr. Field entering the jail the night prior, suddenly I was denied access to my expert witness by the sheriff's department.

April 23rd, 2008:
I immediately moved for a dismissal due to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department interfering with my due process rights. The motion was denied. As I am sure you are asking yourself, why did I wait so near to trial before meeting my expert? Well, that's judicial bureaucracy at it's finest to prove the cheapest trial possible without denying any constitutional rights of the accused.
In Maricopa County Arizona, if the judge orders an expert witness assigned to a case, another county agency, Maricopa County Public Defense Services (M.C.P.D.S.) actually pays the cost associated to the expert. In my case, the M.C.P.D.S authorized Mr. Field to travel to Arizona once, essentially for the time Mr. Field would actually testify. Because I knew I would need preparation time with Mr. Field prior to his testimony, I file a separate motion to Judge Raymond Lee requesting funding for additional travel expense for Mr. Field. Judge Lee granted my request, but it never was reflected in any Minute Entry generated by the court. After getting the motion for the funding granted I attempted to arrange travel for Mr. Field through M.C.P.D.S. The director then wrote a letter to my advisory counsel, Mr. Evan Romberg, to verify if Judge Lee granted my request. Mr. Romberg had no recollection of my motion for the travel expense being granted. So I received a letter the M.C.P.D.S. denying my funding for Mr. Field. I then had to re-file another motion to the court requesting to add the approval to a Minute Entry so funding would be provided through M.C.P.D.S. That simple request took nearly two months to complete.
Well, I know what else you're thinking! Mr. Field was approved for over one year as an expert, you only described a sixty day process, what did you do the rest of the time? By the time trial actually started in April of 2008, it was my 12th trial date. I was lucky I even had experts to stay with me for a year. Please read my Special Action filed with the Arizona Court of Appeal to help you understand how the county of Maricopa prosecuting attorneys and Judge Lee violated my due process rights to a speedy trial.

April 24th, 2008:
Cherie Queen, nee Karban, my ex-wife, becomes the first witness called by the state. For reasons that still elude me, Cherie also begins to lie under oath regarding two very provable, but yet somewhat insignificant facts. Cherie testified a person could not visibly see between our mobile home and my sister's home in Rapid River, Michigan. Secondly, Cherie denied the existence of heating ducts located in our newly built house in Rapid River. Although these two facts have nothing to do with molesting adopted children, I had photographs taken during trial and introduced as exhibits to show both of Cherie's claims to be untrue. One would think that if someone could lie about the obvious, what more could they be capable of lying about?

April 29th, 2008: My cross examination of Cherie was interrupted so Cherie's sister, Sandra Campbell could testify in person. Sandy needed to return to Michigan, so I agreed to allow the cross examination of Cherie to be delayed. I chose to allow the interruption to expose another lie Cherie had told during her testimony for the state. Cherie had just testified she and the children never used a web camera in our Michigan home. Sandy then testified truthfully that Cherie and the children would in fact have web camera visits in 2002 between the Rapid River home and Phoenix, Arizona.

April 30th, 2008:
Cherie continues her testimony.

May 1st, 2008:
Cherie finishes her testimony and Harold Horner, Cherie's step-father, is called by the state. During my cross-examination of Harold Horner, I asked him if he ever told the Phoenix Police detectives if he (Harold) ever had any thought these allegations were “conjured up”. He testified he did not. When I read him his actual statement from his transcribed interview, I was told I must be mistaken, because he “never said those words”. I hope to place the actual audio clip here in time also.

May 5th, 2008:
The state's expert, Ms. Wendy Dutton, testified for the state on the general characteristics of sexually abused children. I also had filed a motion to preclude Ms. Dutton as her testimony is based in part on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (C.S.A.A.S). The motion was denied. During cross-examination of Ms. Dutton I quoted numerous negative comments given in various Supreme Court rulings regarding the testimony of C.S.A.A.S. and asked her if she agreed with each statement. I was surprised, but she in fact agreed with each of these very negative comments regarding C.S.A.A.S. Testimony. I then followed up with asking her if she found it odd to be called by the state to give testimony regarding C.S.A.A.S. To which she responded “no, not really.”

May 6th, 2008:
Elsie Queen, nee Karban, was called by the state to testify. During Elsie's testimony, Elsie recalled that on one occasion I tried to get Elsie and Amanda to drink some leftover Jalapeńo juice from a pepper jar. During testimony Elsie stated she thought I had had poured beer into the cup with the juice I was trying to get her to drink. During cross examination I reminded Elsie she had told this same story on numerous occasions but never before mentioned anything about any beer. When I asked Elsie who told her about me putting beer into the Jalapeńo juice, Elsie responded “Rachel” (the prosecuting attorney).