Hutt said after the felony dismissal that he had charged a reduced rate of $350 an hour; he also said the Boyd’s dismissing of the charges likely saved the city and the county at least $200,000 for additional attorney and expert time.
Beeson said his office has not formulated the expense involved in both convening the grand jury and its nearly year-long investigation into the Lofgrens’ deaths. Pitkin County pays a share of the budget for Beeson’s office, along with Garfield and Rio Blanco counties.
He said, though, that money does not factor into decisions to prosecute.
“When seeking justice, we do not consider cost, for it is not the cost of the case that determines whether or not a crime has been committed. It is the evidence,” Beeson said in an email. “The tragedy is not the cost and effort put into this case. The tragedy is that an entire family died unnecessarily. Let us not forget that.”
That evidence led to a prosecution that was deemed “unprecedented” in American law by a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the city and the county, along with the International Code Council and the Colorado Municipal League. The brief was filed in support of a motion to dismiss by Hutt that cited immunity usually granted to public employees. The only similar case the defense could find arose in the 1920s and was dismissed, Hutt wrote.
The day before the criminal charges were dropped against Peltonen and Brown, a federal judge dismissed the civil lawsuit filed by Lofgren relatives against Pitkin County, Peltonen and Pawl. The civil case against Brown and several other contractors who worked on the residence before the tragedy, along with the owner of the home, is proceeding in Denver District Court....."
(Chad Abraham)
See the related Lofgren story D.A. Beeson is referring to here.
Note from SandBox:
Previous posts and commentary on the Lofgren cases, from avatars all over the state including all the commentary done on the Aspen Times and Glenwood Springs Post Independent since the tragic loss and in the case of SandBox's news summary blog over the past 16 months of our existence; have contained a great deal of information into the public's mindset about these cases.
The range of debate ran from the construction industry ramifications to political concerns to concerns over the case handling itself.
Never was there ever, in our memory, any comment made that had anything but concern over how the families were affected. In fact, the general public and reporters in all the nationwide reporting that has been done on these cases in 9th Judicial, have shown as the primary voices of concern for the families. There is an accumulation out there of incredibly insightful, compassionate and caring people who have spoken up from all sides of the issue.
SandBox, gave very clear (and rare) commentary on Lofgren when the criminal cases were dismissed, via the link above that holds prosecutor Paul Nitze's column and again when Erik Peltonen recently wrote his appreciation for the community support letter in the Aspen Daily.
In that commentary, some of which is now hard-copy archived, SandBox expressed concern that neither the families or the former accused would be able to find closure. Solely because of the political and policy ramifications that have been at the forefront from the key dates that the 9th decided to not take the findings of law enforcement, convene the Grand Jury and then lash the high-profile aspects of Lofgren and Bebb-Jones to the reasoning for D.A. Beeson dropping out of the race for 3rd Congressional.
All of those things were very publically promoted by the 9th. And have always struck us as highly inflammatory, given the mindset of what the folks were saying in commentary since the family passed.
Today, Chad Abraham once again shows very steady hands on the reins of reporting the next phases of Lofgren. Which, due to the nature of politics playing a very strong hand in local law enforcement; is going to begin to escalate simply because we are entering another election cycle.
Chad has now done two articles, clearly showing that the media is not going to forget the details and the facts.
D.A. Beeson, in this article, appears to be responding in what has always been seen as his demeanor and personal beliefs.
With nowhere else to go except now out into national media spotlight, which is a place commentators have never appreciated being thrust when it comes to Lofgren. And with the Aspen Times now being so strongly rebelled against for their use of the most invasive to privacy social network there is in Facebook; that leaves only three regional blogs where comment ability is available.
SandBox Commentators not only being one of them but also being the least provocative.
Based on how both entities, in D.A. Beeson and the Daily have clearly postured themselves in the last two Daily articles on Lofgren; here's how SandBox is going to handle what looks like the shaping up to be a clash of culture and philosophy from the D.A.'s end (and) the hard answers the folks are already wanting as they move forward and unfortunately for timing, into an election cycle.
"If" she feels there is media insensitivity to any individual involved, 'SandBox Nanny' will be pulling the plug on comment ability. Politics or no.
Otherwise, SandBox will stand on the commentary made on Nitze's column on Lofgren as the only comment we feel needs to be made. Public commentary will not be given any further special and considerate moderating and will be allowed to run in the same manner as all other public information.
With that said, please heed D.A. Beeson's caution in this article, albeit whether you personally feel differently than the tone he gives that caution in, to remember that a family lost their lives. Stick to the factors that the family and survivors had no control over. Which are the only relevant at this point factors.
(Read more? Click title and comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
1 comment:
A wise choice, Nanny.
No one should forget the topic.
That topic is the Lofgren cases as handled by the 9th Judicial District Office of the District Attorney.
There is no other topic. There is no smoke, mirrors, spin, hype or agendas anywhere that will be successful in distorting the only topic there is.
Nitze spoke as a seasoned veteran prosecutor who also happens to be one of the most highly respected we have known.
The moral grounds spin from Beeson that is typical of the culture of his 9th is highly inappropriate.
One cannot stand on a platform of justice won through morality and personal beliefs when one is running a parallel path of media distortion that borders on a scolding to the public he serves for their not having high enough moral standards in his eyes. Beeson is a public servant prosecutor not a preacher.
Nitze defined the highest moral ground there is in the service of law when he defined the duty that should have been taken, but was not taken in Lofgren.
Nitze further went on to point out the most basic, the most rudimentary procedures and laws are going to be seen as unconscionable misses on the part of the 9th unless Beeson and Mordkin step forward with accountability and transparency.
Beeson deflates completely as a result in his now coming out of the gate in the way he has. This continued posture of refusing to heed what his judges are sending to him in their rulings and the public is growing in volume to express is damning to Martin's platform. Not to mention a flagrant show of disrespect for the bench.
Which, after nearly 7 years gone in his tenure, with the track record he and his staff have, is a positive outcome for the public as we do face what makes our adversarial system of justice work. Politics. This is not a game of tiddly-winks.
The 9th Judicial needs no further association with this kind of moral culture mixed with contradictory performance and case handling.
The fact that we are in an election cycle as Lofgren ends is seen as positive.
Nitze is accurate.
The DA needs to explain himself to the public he serves.
Post a Comment