Introduction
For the most part,
Colorado's district attorneys and U.S.
Attorneys constitute conclusive disproof of
evolution: They show that it is possible for
one to be sentient without benefit of a
spine. Most are avaricious eunuchs, like
Craig Silverman, who wouldn't criticize a
sitting judge for anything short of serial
murder:
[B]ut we're also
attorneys, and we don't know when a case
bars, or one of our partners is going to
be in front of Judge Nottingham, so if
you perceive a little hesitancy on my
part, that it accurate. ... For me
personally, it is sort of dicey for me
to be talking about
Judge Nottingham
-- it's a delicate situation for Denver
lawyers.
Craig Silverman,
Caplis and Silverman (KHOW radio broadcast
Mar. 10, 2008) (mp3 on file).
Others have been characterized as "machine"
politicians (e.g., Bill Ritter, Mitch
Morrissey, Ken Salazar, John Suthers, et
al.), accused of routinely placing their
own career aspirations before their oaths to
uphold and defend the Constitution. Still
others have set unrivaled standards for
gross incompetence on the public stage (e.g.,
Mary Lacy Keenan [the JonBenet Ramsey
investigation], Mark Hurlbert [the Kobe
Bryant rape investigation] and John Newsome
(click
here).
And some, like current U.S. Attorney, Troy
Eid,1 have assumed the office
under a dark cloud of suspicion.
We at
KnowYourCOurts.com
have found two consistent and stellar
exceptions to the rule: Arapahoe County
District Attorney Carol Chambers, and
Jefferson County District Attorney Scott
Storey.
We have struggled with endorsements because
KnowYourCourts.com
is a non-partisan Web site. But we can't
summon the future on our own, and recognize
that we need people with a sense of outrage
and the courage to stand on principle
against Colorado's judicial and political
machines in sensitive positions such as
these. As such, we endorse District
Attorneys Chambers and Storey, as they have
proven their mettle under fire.
Under Fire
In World War II,
veterans recalled, the flak was heaviest
when just over the target; Chambers has
caught a lot of it for taking on corrupt
cops used to district attorneys who looked
the other way (click
here),
bottom-feeding debt collection attorneys
used to harassing victims of identity theft
(here),
and judges used to lording unchecked power
over everyone. (here
and
here).
Since her upset
victory in the Republican primary in
2004, Chambers has been getting a lot of
people's attention. No other rookie DA
in memory has cut such a wide and
acrimonious swath through the state's
criminal-justice system, discarding or
ignoring long-established protocols and
taboos. She's filed grievances against
defense attorneys she considers
unprofessional and purged her own staff
of elements she considered disloyal.
She's berated the county commissioners
over her [reduced] salary and criticized
cops freely. She's even taken on the
bench in Arapahoe County, complaining of
bias and unnecessary delays, and
ordering her staff to time the judges'
breaks -- an extraordinary step.
Alan Prendergast,
The Punisher,
The Westword, Feb. 8, 2007.
Needless to say, she ran afoul of Colorado's
politically-driven attorney regulation
system, one that another bold attorney, Mark
Brennan, has charaterized:
[T]he attorney
regulation system does indeed exist in
part to preserve the illusion of an
ethical profession, but certainly does
not protect the entire profession, and
is, indeed, sometimes used as a means of
punishing those who challenge the
established order. Those who most
greatly abuse their authority and power
to advance the interests of the rich and
powerful are largely immune from ethics
enforcement.
March 17, 2008
email
of Mark Brennan
Chambers is one of the precious few
Establishment attorneys willing to comment
candidly about the sorry state of
professional advocacy in Colorado courts:
As I am sure you
know, there are some attorneys who tend
to chose words and arguments very
carefully so that they do not
technically cross the line of
untruthfulness. They view it as the job
of opposing counsel to listen closely
and clarify any possible
misunderstanding the court may have
based upon what may be misleading, but
not technically untrue, arguments. It is
a sad state of affairs that the legal
profession has come to this and that
such tactics are tolerated. I think
there may be some attorneys who even
view the ability to do this well as a
indication of clever, acceptable and
effective advocacy.
I do not think
perjury is petty under any
circumstances. As DA's, we frequently
deal with misrepresentations made by
defense counsel; it seems to have become
the standard of practice for some.
Sept. 5, 2007
email
of Carol Chambers
Her honesty doesn't stop there. She has no
love affair with America's crooked plea
bargain system:
The only reason to
plea-bargain many of our cases is
because we do not have sufficient courts
available to try them . . . If we have
trial weeks that are unused, we should
be trying as many habitual offenders as
we can. Please keep the offers on these
cases tough and encourage them to go to
trial.
Chambers email to her
chief deputy, reported in The Westword
(here).
This is a position seldom taken by
prosecutors, but often expressed by
defendants:
I was fortunate to
have the resources and will to fight to
the end, but there are many [defendants]
who don't and they will forever suffer
from the forced compromise of an unfair
plea bargain or the threat of sentencing
guidelines that demand imprisonment,
that hang over one's head like the sword
of Damocles. If some good is to come of
this, then let it be that the actions of
a tiny minority of aggressive, Taser
wielding police officers don't tarnish
the reputation of the vast majority of
officers who proudly serve their
communities with honor and sacrifice. I
sincerely believe they deserve our
utmost respect, but respect is something
that must be earned and not demanded
with a closed fist or an electrifying
weapon
Alex Zivojinovich,
June 15, 2005 (here)
Swift
wrote
in Gullver's Travels that "there was a
Society of Men among us, bred up from their
Youth in the Art of proving by words
multiplied for the Purpose, that White is
Black, and Black is White, according as they
are paid." What Swift intended as satirical
comment, Colorado lawyers view as a standard
of practice to which they are to aspire. It
is refreshing to encounter any attorney who
finds this practice to be repulsive, which
is why we regard Ms. Chambers as such a
treasure.
Scott Storey distinguished himself in the
Larry Manzanares scandal, where the former
judge's powerful friends (including fellow
Harvard Law School alum and Chief Justice
Mary Mullarkey) wanted him treated with kid
gloves. As near as can be determined, Denver
DA Mitch Morrissey didn't even bother to
investigate Chief Justice Mullarkey for her
connection with that scandal -- which is
what brought the matter to the media's
attention in the first place -- but in
Colorado, these things simply aren't done.
To his credit, Storey treated the Manzanares
like any other high-profile case; the media
firestorm --not Storey-- induced the former
judge and alleged thief, Manzanares, to
tragically take his own life.
Jefferson County is so Republican that
Republican officeholders' re-election
prospects are good; accordingly, Storey's
job is safe. Chambers faces a tougher slog,
both in the primary and general election,
which is why we've taken this stand.
______________________________
1
Specifically, Eid is a known associate of
the infamous Jack Abramoff, who lobbied
Interior Secretary Norton on behalf of the
Mashpee tribe in November, 2003 (Sean
Gonsalves,
Tribal Lobbying
Produced Results,
Cape Cod Times, Oct. 21, 2006) --the same
Mashpee tribe represented by Abramoff (Mashpee
Chairman Happy With Abramoff Work,
Indianz.com,
Nov. 22, 2005)-- but evidently, never
reported his lobbying efforts (
Did CO's USA Hide His Abramoff-Related
Lobbying?,
The Next Hurrah (blog), May 1, 2007).
|
Denver DA claims that public
officials are held to a higher
standard:
In March, 2007, the Rocky
Mountain News (RMN) broke a
story that a top Colorado
judicial department official
asked Denver police to drop a
case against a former judge,
Larry Manzanares, who had been
caught with a stolen laptop.
The story originally appeared
here
(KnowYourCOURTS.com has archived
the page
here).
Shortly thereafter, one RMN
forum on the subject (originally
found
here) contained
a March 9, 2007 09:06 a.m.
post allegedly by Lynn Kimbrough
of the Denver DA's Office:
Whether the DA's Office has
more important crime to
prosecute or whether someone
is going to get jail time
aren't valid considerations
in this case.
The issue is much larger
than 'just a theft case'
because it involves the
public trust. A full
investigation MUST be done
by an independent agency
because the integrity of our
criminal justice system
depends on it. Public
officials ARE held to a
higher standard.
It would have been fairly
routine for the Deputy DA
who first declined the case
to do so in a situation
where the property had been
returned and the victim
wasn't interested in
pursuing charges. (We deal
with folks all the time who
are glad to have their stuff
back and who don't want to
endure a long criminal
justice process.) But this
case can't be treated
routinely precisely because
the allegation involved a
public official.
When a public official faces
an allegation of wrongdoing
like this the situation
requires immediate action to
fully investigate all
aspects; an investigation
that must be done by an
outside agency. That's why
the Assistant District
Attorney took those steps
immediately upon learning of
the case.
|
Do District Attorneys prosecute perjury against
ordinary citizens?
|
How do District Attorneys handle
complaints regarding possible
criminal conduct (e.g., perjury)
against or about [other]
attorneys? |
|
Additional Research Resources |
(reminder - it is site
visitors' responsibility to verify
authenticity, accuracy, applicability of
statutes, rules, regulations,
etc. -see
Disclaimer)
C.R.S. § 16-5-209 (Judge may require
prosecution):
|
The judge of a court having
jurisdiction of the alleged
offense, upon affidavit filed
with the judge alleging the
commission of a crime and the
unjustified refusal of the
prosecuting attorney to
prosecute any person for the
crime, may require the
prosecuting attorney to appear
before the judge and explain the
refusal. If after that
proceeding, based on the
competent evidence in the
affidavit, the explanation of
the prosecuting attorney, and
any argument of the parties, the
judge finds that the refusal of
the prosecuting attorney to
prosecute was arbitrary or
capricious and without
reasonable excuse, the judge may
order the prosecuting attorney
to file an information and
prosecute the case or may
appoint a special prosecutor to
do so. The judge shall appoint
the special prosecutor from
among the full-time district
attorneys, assistant district
attorneys, or deputy district
attorneys who serve in judicial
districts other than where the
appointment is made; except
that, upon the written approval
of the chief justice of the
supreme court, the judge may
appoint any disinterested
private attorney who is licensed
to practice law in the state of
Colorado to serve as the special
prosecutor. Any special
prosecutor appointed pursuant to
this section shall be
compensated as provided in
section 20-1-308, C.R.S. |
Schupper v.
Smith,
128 P.3d 323
(Colo. App. 2005) (The amendment to
the statute in 2000 effectively
eliminated the right to formal discovery
and the right to a full evidentiary
hearing. Consequently, the trial
court may, at its discretion, provide
for an evidentiary hearing after it has
considered the petitioner's affidavit,
the explanation of the district attorney
(if required by the court) and any
argument of the parties. Moreover,
The 2000 amendment also established that
the special statutory proceeding created
by this statute is exempted from
application of the rules of civil
procedure.)
Burneson v. Araphahoe County Distr.
Atty., supra
(It matters not if a crime had, in
fact, been committed. The only question
is whether the district attorney's
decision not to prosecute was "arbitrary
and capricious.")
For older cases, see:
Dohaish v. Tooley, 670 F.2d 934
(10th Cir.), cert. denied,
459 U.S. 826, 103 S. Ct. 60, 74 L. Ed.2d
63 (1982).
Tooley v. District Court, 190
Colo. 468, 549 P.2d 772 (1976)
People ex rel. Losavio v. Gentry,
199 Colo. 153, 606 P.2d 57 (1980)
Sandoval v. Farish, 675 P.2d 300
(Colo. 1984)
Landis v. Farish, 674 P.2d 957
(Colo. 1984).
Moody v. Larsen, 802 P.2d 1169
(Colo. App. 1990)
|