The media wind-up this past week, to DA Beeson's comment in this article from Dennis Webb over on the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, can be found in the following links. Keep in mind the wide deviations there are in the reporting off the Post Independent and Aspen Times that rarely, if ever, report unbiased, fairly and with fact when it comes to DA Beeson's and law enforcement news stories whereas the Sentinel covers, usually and for the most part with the higher standards and ethics good journalists follow:
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/man-sentenced-for-email-harassing-of-bebbjones-son
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20120607/VALLEYNEWS/120609930/1083&ParentPr
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20120608/VALLEYNEWS/120609898/1001&parentpr
Dennis Webb:
"“I think it’s clear what we were all here for, and what we were here for, our expectations weren’t met,” a clearly disappointed 9th Judicial District Attorney Martin Beeson said after the arraignment.
Now, he said, “My hope is to achieve justice in this case. I have my idea of what justice is and I’m going to pursue that and I’m going to pursue it relentlessly.”
District Judge Dan Petre set a five-week trial that begins Nov. 5. That timing resolved Beeson’s concern that it might start later and carry into next year. Beeson, a Republican, believes prosecutors would have been left at a disadvantage if he lost in this fall’s election to Democratic challenger Sherry Caloia and there was a change in administration in the midst of a trial..."
(Read more? Click title)
For relevant background on how media high-profile the 9th Judicial District Attorney's office has ratcheted up the Marcus Bebb-Jones accusation and to follow public commentary; click the links below and all links within those blog posts:
http://sandboxcommentators.blogspot.com/2012/03/sandboxblogs-daily-star-poker-champ.html
http://sandboxcommentators.blogspot.com/2012/05/sandboxblogs-kidderminster-shuttle-son.html
Disclaimer:
"Now that DA Beeson has thrown his hat in the ring for district attorney in the 9th, please take note that there will be no special treatment given to any news press surrounding his race. His articles, if they are SandBox worthy or chosen in the daily agg run-up; will be put up just like anyone else in a political race. What SandBox Commentators will continue to do, is heavily moderate his articles. We are the only news media that provides the courtesy of moderating commentary from the general public on 9th Judicial District and Mr. Beeson's articles. )"
Showing posts with label The Truth Hurts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Truth Hurts. Show all posts
June 10, 2012
May 11, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Kidderminster Shuttle "Plea hearing delayed for Kidderminster murder accused"
(See related story, other related posts and links within posts (and) public commentary on all here)
(See other (local) reporters styles on this latest Bebb-Jones story by clicking here and here)
Comment abililty is blocked on this post.
Jennifer Meierhans:
".....On Thursday, Matt Morriss, a deputy public defender, used the Ashworth development as part of an argument for asking Judge Dan Petre to delay the plea decision.
Mr Morriss said it called into question some of what happened at a recent preliminary hearing, which concluded with Petre binding Bebb-Jones over for trial.
Det Ashworth was a key witness in the hearing.
Judge Petre delayed the plea date until June 6 in hopes that a last-minute plea agreement might be reached to avoid a trial that 9th Judicial District Attorney Martin Beeson said could last six to eight weeks.
Attorney Beeson told Judge Petre that Bebb-Jones rejected a previous plea deal and none were on the table now. Attorney Beeson said if the case goes to trial, as many as 200 witnesses might be called to the stand....." (Read more? Click title)
(This post is one of the infrequent commentary posts that I give regarding the 9th Judicial District. Note disclaimer below)
"The Truth Hurts.
Sometimes, the truth really hurts.
Not just feuding strategies amongst attorneys and their cases, but lives that seemingly have nothing to do with those cases. When does this happen? That others get hurt in the cross-fire?
Sometimes because of power, politics, high ambitions and the funds to fuel super-lawyers that skillfully steer high media attention.
Quite often 'collateral damage' happens in cases that are seen as 90% circumstantial and 10% possible substance.
Where the truth becomes corrosive to justice and/or outside the confines of ethics and law is in the failure of duty. The law is absolute. Duty is bound. As Americans, in the greatest justice system in the world, we are led to inherently believe that law and duty walk hand-in-hand. That 'collateral damage' just is not possible to become a factor in the administration of our courts.
The full truth hurts.
Here in the 9th Judicial District over the past couple of years, we have had a flurry of conflicts, accusations, dissent and very high media attention regarding our prosecutors and public defenders.
Unfortunately coinciding with both historic and high-profile alleged criminal cases.
A 'Perfect Storm', if you will.
Of tragedy, politics, conflicting perception of what crimes are being committed and what crimes are not.
Money, sex, star-filled names and glam, big power and big money walking alongside government officials that are ethic and duty bound.
Major and historic busts and arrests under the heavy- hanging umbrella of alleged public corruption and alleged failures of duty. So much so, our cops are even in conflict and some agencies share little trust.
And yet, like the story of cases lost and the crazy battle over alleged cop-spitters and douche-bags, irretrievable consequences of the Scott DeGraffs and Daniel Bebb-Jones', we have made progress only in the past few days by finally getting to the core roots of the problems between our prosecutors and public defenders.
As painful as it may end up being (and as historic) Chief Deputy Public Defender Tina Fang and Chief Deputy District Attorney Arnold Mordkin are finally getting the real core cards out on the table in front of District Court Judge Gail Nichols.
Unfortunately now, if we are to believe the media coverage, to apparently have coming along behind them, deputy public defender Matt Morriss and his advisor, retired public defender James Conway, giving a toss of jet fuel "gotcha" to the smoldering embers of District Attorney Martin Beeson's one valid point in his highly controversial 2010 "The Truth Hurts" op-ed column.
Which was that motion after motion that really are stall tactics were being filed.
DA Beeson then went on in 2010, to accusatory and inflammatory verbiage claiming such tactics were SOP for all criminal defenders in his district but specifically public defenders. Ironically, defenders fired back with a broad sweep of their own observations with the end result finally narrowing down to what we see now between Fang and Mordkin.
Nobody in the entire 9th Judicial District is more eager than the folks to get this war begun nearly eight years ago now under the control of our judges. Fang and Mordkin are appreciated.
What a shame, in a case like Marcus Bebb-Jones where there are already questions of case validity for a variety of reasons, combined with the accused and the victim if she could, having serious considerations for the safety and well-being of their surviving son, Daniel; that these two public defenders cannot simply follow the stellar lead of Tina Fang and come from only the validity of facts.
Rather than the potential of returning us all to the murky world of inflammatory and baiting language that comes from trying a case in the media. "200 witnesses" should be more than enough, one would think.
Former Garfield County Sheriff Corporal Erik Ashworth's years of stellar reputed work, including his time on the Bebb-Jones case should not be taken away from him because of an as of yet unproven and totally unrelated accusation against him.
No more than former Glenwood PD Paul Pedersen should be considered untrustworthy as a credible witness because of a human error in judgement that is entirely unrelated to the 40 year problem of the Aspen drug culture of which he has had stellar performances in combating.
This 'gotcha' tactic, if it is attempted by Morriss and Conway, is sleaze and is also damning towards proving District Attorney Martin Beeson's one valid point in his attack on public defenders in 2010.
For the sake of deceased Sabrina Bebb-Jones and her son Daniel, civilians in the 9th can all be very grateful that Dan Petre is the judge who has his hands firmly on the reins."
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
(Disclaimer: "Now that DA Beeson has thrown his hat in the ring for district attorney in the 9th, please take note that there will be no special treatment given to any news press surrounding his race. His articles, if they are SandBox worthy or chosen in the daily agg run-up; will be put up just like anyone else in a political race. What SandBox Commentators will continue to do, is heavily moderate his articles. (We are the only news media that provides the courtesy of moderating commentary from the general public on 9th Judicial District and Mr. Beeson's articles. All 9th Judicial news articles are DA Beeson's articles)
(See other (local) reporters styles on this latest Bebb-Jones story by clicking here and here)
Comment abililty is blocked on this post.
Jennifer Meierhans:
".....On Thursday, Matt Morriss, a deputy public defender, used the Ashworth development as part of an argument for asking Judge Dan Petre to delay the plea decision.
Mr Morriss said it called into question some of what happened at a recent preliminary hearing, which concluded with Petre binding Bebb-Jones over for trial.
Det Ashworth was a key witness in the hearing.
Judge Petre delayed the plea date until June 6 in hopes that a last-minute plea agreement might be reached to avoid a trial that 9th Judicial District Attorney Martin Beeson said could last six to eight weeks.
Attorney Beeson told Judge Petre that Bebb-Jones rejected a previous plea deal and none were on the table now. Attorney Beeson said if the case goes to trial, as many as 200 witnesses might be called to the stand....." (Read more? Click title)
(This post is one of the infrequent commentary posts that I give regarding the 9th Judicial District. Note disclaimer below)
"The Truth Hurts.
Sometimes, the truth really hurts.
Not just feuding strategies amongst attorneys and their cases, but lives that seemingly have nothing to do with those cases. When does this happen? That others get hurt in the cross-fire?
Sometimes because of power, politics, high ambitions and the funds to fuel super-lawyers that skillfully steer high media attention.
Quite often 'collateral damage' happens in cases that are seen as 90% circumstantial and 10% possible substance.
Where the truth becomes corrosive to justice and/or outside the confines of ethics and law is in the failure of duty. The law is absolute. Duty is bound. As Americans, in the greatest justice system in the world, we are led to inherently believe that law and duty walk hand-in-hand. That 'collateral damage' just is not possible to become a factor in the administration of our courts.
The full truth hurts.
Here in the 9th Judicial District over the past couple of years, we have had a flurry of conflicts, accusations, dissent and very high media attention regarding our prosecutors and public defenders.
Unfortunately coinciding with both historic and high-profile alleged criminal cases.
A 'Perfect Storm', if you will.
Of tragedy, politics, conflicting perception of what crimes are being committed and what crimes are not.
Money, sex, star-filled names and glam, big power and big money walking alongside government officials that are ethic and duty bound.
Major and historic busts and arrests under the heavy- hanging umbrella of alleged public corruption and alleged failures of duty. So much so, our cops are even in conflict and some agencies share little trust.
And yet, like the story of cases lost and the crazy battle over alleged cop-spitters and douche-bags, irretrievable consequences of the Scott DeGraffs and Daniel Bebb-Jones', we have made progress only in the past few days by finally getting to the core roots of the problems between our prosecutors and public defenders.
As painful as it may end up being (and as historic) Chief Deputy Public Defender Tina Fang and Chief Deputy District Attorney Arnold Mordkin are finally getting the real core cards out on the table in front of District Court Judge Gail Nichols.
Unfortunately now, if we are to believe the media coverage, to apparently have coming along behind them, deputy public defender Matt Morriss and his advisor, retired public defender James Conway, giving a toss of jet fuel "gotcha" to the smoldering embers of District Attorney Martin Beeson's one valid point in his highly controversial 2010 "The Truth Hurts" op-ed column.
Which was that motion after motion that really are stall tactics were being filed.
DA Beeson then went on in 2010, to accusatory and inflammatory verbiage claiming such tactics were SOP for all criminal defenders in his district but specifically public defenders. Ironically, defenders fired back with a broad sweep of their own observations with the end result finally narrowing down to what we see now between Fang and Mordkin.
Nobody in the entire 9th Judicial District is more eager than the folks to get this war begun nearly eight years ago now under the control of our judges. Fang and Mordkin are appreciated.
What a shame, in a case like Marcus Bebb-Jones where there are already questions of case validity for a variety of reasons, combined with the accused and the victim if she could, having serious considerations for the safety and well-being of their surviving son, Daniel; that these two public defenders cannot simply follow the stellar lead of Tina Fang and come from only the validity of facts.
Rather than the potential of returning us all to the murky world of inflammatory and baiting language that comes from trying a case in the media. "200 witnesses" should be more than enough, one would think.
Former Garfield County Sheriff Corporal Erik Ashworth's years of stellar reputed work, including his time on the Bebb-Jones case should not be taken away from him because of an as of yet unproven and totally unrelated accusation against him.
No more than former Glenwood PD Paul Pedersen should be considered untrustworthy as a credible witness because of a human error in judgement that is entirely unrelated to the 40 year problem of the Aspen drug culture of which he has had stellar performances in combating.
This 'gotcha' tactic, if it is attempted by Morriss and Conway, is sleaze and is also damning towards proving District Attorney Martin Beeson's one valid point in his attack on public defenders in 2010.
For the sake of deceased Sabrina Bebb-Jones and her son Daniel, civilians in the 9th can all be very grateful that Dan Petre is the judge who has his hands firmly on the reins."
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
(Disclaimer: "Now that DA Beeson has thrown his hat in the ring for district attorney in the 9th, please take note that there will be no special treatment given to any news press surrounding his race. His articles, if they are SandBox worthy or chosen in the daily agg run-up; will be put up just like anyone else in a political race. What SandBox Commentators will continue to do, is heavily moderate his articles. (We are the only news media that provides the courtesy of moderating commentary from the general public on 9th Judicial District and Mr. Beeson's articles. All 9th Judicial news articles are DA Beeson's articles)
April 25, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Aspen Daily News "Caloia to challenge Beeson in DA race"
(See recent related stories and recent public commentary here, here and here)
Chad Abraham:
"Saying she disagrees with the philosophy of the 9th Judicial District prosecutor’s office, a longtime Glenwood Springs lawyer is challenging the re-election bid of District Attorney Martin Beeson.
Sherry Caloia, who has practiced law for 30 years and been a Glenwood resident since 1988, said Tuesday that it was a difficult decision to enter the race.
But Beeson’s statements about the role of defense attorneys, his appeal of a judge’s sanctioning of the Aspen DA’s office and certain prosecutions she finds questionable all led to her decision to enter the race, she said.
The 9th Judicial District encompasses Pitkin, Garfield and Rio Blanco counties.
Ironically, the man she is challenging might not be the top prosecutor had it not been for efforts by Caloia and others to recall the previous district attorney, Colleen Truden, in 2005.
Caloia, 56, organized the petition drive that led to the first recall in Colorado history of a district attorney. Several deputy district attorneys, including Beeson, resigned rather than continue working with Truden. Among the criticisms of Truden were allegations of financial and ethical improprieties.
But Caloia, a defense attorney who also serves as municipal prosecutor for the towns of Basalt and Carbondale, said her efforts then were strictly on the petition effort.
“I didn’t help him get elected,” she said of Beeson, a Republican. “I think he’s a good man, and I respect him ... but I didn’t work on Martin’s campaign.”
Caloia, a longtime Democrat, said the political party in Garfield County lobbied her “very heavily” to throw her hat in the ring. But the issues are not strictly political, she said..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Disclaimer:
Chad Abraham:
"Saying she disagrees with the philosophy of the 9th Judicial District prosecutor’s office, a longtime Glenwood Springs lawyer is challenging the re-election bid of District Attorney Martin Beeson.
Sherry Caloia, who has practiced law for 30 years and been a Glenwood resident since 1988, said Tuesday that it was a difficult decision to enter the race.
But Beeson’s statements about the role of defense attorneys, his appeal of a judge’s sanctioning of the Aspen DA’s office and certain prosecutions she finds questionable all led to her decision to enter the race, she said.
The 9th Judicial District encompasses Pitkin, Garfield and Rio Blanco counties.
Ironically, the man she is challenging might not be the top prosecutor had it not been for efforts by Caloia and others to recall the previous district attorney, Colleen Truden, in 2005.
Caloia, 56, organized the petition drive that led to the first recall in Colorado history of a district attorney. Several deputy district attorneys, including Beeson, resigned rather than continue working with Truden. Among the criticisms of Truden were allegations of financial and ethical improprieties.
But Caloia, a defense attorney who also serves as municipal prosecutor for the towns of Basalt and Carbondale, said her efforts then were strictly on the petition effort.
“I didn’t help him get elected,” she said of Beeson, a Republican. “I think he’s a good man, and I respect him ... but I didn’t work on Martin’s campaign.”
Caloia, a longtime Democrat, said the political party in Garfield County lobbied her “very heavily” to throw her hat in the ring. But the issues are not strictly political, she said..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Disclaimer:
"Now that DA Beeson has thrown his hat in the ring for district attorney in the 9th, please take note that there will be no special treatment given to any news press surrounding his race. His articles, if they are SandBox worthy or chosen in the daily agg run-up; will be put up just like anyone else in a political race. What SandBox Commentators will continue to do, is heavily moderate his articles. We are the only news media that provides the courtesy of moderating commentary from the general public on 9th Judicial District and Mr. Beeson's articles. ) "
April 23, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Glenwood Springs Post Independent "Defense attorney questioning DA's eligibility for re-election"
(sighs...rolls eyes)
Note: SandBox disclaimer below.
Note: Because both men in this article are showing absolutely zero regard to the general population they serve, by placing themselves and their flaming controversy(s), (that just so happen to deeply affect the lives of folks in three counties) into the hands of the least trustworthy print news and reporter around (which renders the data they're football tossing around as suspect) 'SandBox Nanny' calls 'Time Out' on both men, blocks comment ability on this post (it would be like sending lambs to the slaughter to let the 'kids' at them in comments) and sits back to wait patiently on the balanced, firm hand of the Aspen Daily News. "If" the Daily doesn't report on this new direction for DA Beeson's political race to run, 'SandBox Nanny' will open comment ability and bless each man as they head into the ring they keep insisting on shoving in the folks faces. Take note of disclaimer below again, please.
John Colson:
"........At issue is whether the three years Beeson served as district attorney when he finished the term of a recalled DA, from 2006 through 2008, counts as his first term in office, or if his first term started when he was elected in 2008. Under state law, district attorneys are limited to two terms in office..........
........Local defense attorney Tom Silverman of Glenwood Springs, a Democrat, contends that the coming four-year term for which Beeson is running would be his third term.
Silverman cited the Colorado Constitution, which states that district attorneys are restricted to two, four-year terms in office.
Beeson, however, maintains that he has yet to serve two full terms in office.
“He is simply wrong,” Beeson said of Silverman's position.
According to his reading of state law, Beeson said, “a term for a district attorney is a full term, and a full term is four years.”
He cited a 2000 legal opinion issued by then-Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, which concluded that DAs can serve no more than two full terms.
The opinion did not specifically address the issue of how partial terms count toward the term limits allotment. The opinion states that term limits “have no application to partial terms of office, but rather apply only to full terms.”.....
......Silverman, however, cited a section of the state Constitution, which states that anyone elected “to fill a vacancy ... and who serves at least one half of a term of office shall be considered to have served a term.”
Although that section specifically addresses term limits on U.S. senators and members of Congress, Silverman maintained that the same limitation applies to district attorneys.
“He was elected to a three-year term,” Silverman said, referring to Beeson's initial time in office. “It was more than half a term, so it does count.”.........
.........Silverman questioned why Beeson did not, as state law allows, ask the voters to allow him to serve more than the two-term limit.
In 2009, for example, Mesa County voters decided that those holding the offices of sheriff, DA and coroner could each serve three, four-year terms, rather than the two-term limit imposed by the state..........
.........“Saying I should go to the voters to get permission to run for a second term is like saying I should go to the voters to get permission to drive the speed limit while I'm already driving the speed limit,” Beeson said in an email to the Post Independent. “I am going to the voters. This November.”........
.........Beeson contends that Silverman's questioning of his eligibility to run again stems from courtroom conflicts.
“Let's be clear. Mr. Silverman's issue is not with the law or with the fact that I am in full compliance with the law. His issue is with me,” Beeson wrote in an email. “He is a criminal defense attorney who simply does not like the fact that my office does not coddle his clients, does not accede to his wishes in cases, and does not treat his clients with kid gloves.”
Beeson questioned why Silverman didn't seek another candidate to run, or run for the office himself.
“His failure in this regard speaks volumes,” Beeson wrote. “The adage ‘put up or shut up' is an apt one here.”........"
(Read the rest of this? Click title)
Disclaimer:
Note: SandBox disclaimer below.
Note: Because both men in this article are showing absolutely zero regard to the general population they serve, by placing themselves and their flaming controversy(s), (that just so happen to deeply affect the lives of folks in three counties) into the hands of the least trustworthy print news and reporter around (which renders the data they're football tossing around as suspect) 'SandBox Nanny' calls 'Time Out' on both men, blocks comment ability on this post (it would be like sending lambs to the slaughter to let the 'kids' at them in comments) and sits back to wait patiently on the balanced, firm hand of the Aspen Daily News. "If" the Daily doesn't report on this new direction for DA Beeson's political race to run, 'SandBox Nanny' will open comment ability and bless each man as they head into the ring they keep insisting on shoving in the folks faces. Take note of disclaimer below again, please.
John Colson:
"........At issue is whether the three years Beeson served as district attorney when he finished the term of a recalled DA, from 2006 through 2008, counts as his first term in office, or if his first term started when he was elected in 2008. Under state law, district attorneys are limited to two terms in office..........
........Local defense attorney Tom Silverman of Glenwood Springs, a Democrat, contends that the coming four-year term for which Beeson is running would be his third term.
Silverman cited the Colorado Constitution, which states that district attorneys are restricted to two, four-year terms in office.
Beeson, however, maintains that he has yet to serve two full terms in office.
“He is simply wrong,” Beeson said of Silverman's position.
According to his reading of state law, Beeson said, “a term for a district attorney is a full term, and a full term is four years.”
He cited a 2000 legal opinion issued by then-Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, which concluded that DAs can serve no more than two full terms.
The opinion did not specifically address the issue of how partial terms count toward the term limits allotment. The opinion states that term limits “have no application to partial terms of office, but rather apply only to full terms.”.....
......Silverman, however, cited a section of the state Constitution, which states that anyone elected “to fill a vacancy ... and who serves at least one half of a term of office shall be considered to have served a term.”
Although that section specifically addresses term limits on U.S. senators and members of Congress, Silverman maintained that the same limitation applies to district attorneys.
“He was elected to a three-year term,” Silverman said, referring to Beeson's initial time in office. “It was more than half a term, so it does count.”.........
.........Silverman questioned why Beeson did not, as state law allows, ask the voters to allow him to serve more than the two-term limit.
In 2009, for example, Mesa County voters decided that those holding the offices of sheriff, DA and coroner could each serve three, four-year terms, rather than the two-term limit imposed by the state..........
.........“Saying I should go to the voters to get permission to run for a second term is like saying I should go to the voters to get permission to drive the speed limit while I'm already driving the speed limit,” Beeson said in an email to the Post Independent. “I am going to the voters. This November.”........
.........Beeson contends that Silverman's questioning of his eligibility to run again stems from courtroom conflicts.
“Let's be clear. Mr. Silverman's issue is not with the law or with the fact that I am in full compliance with the law. His issue is with me,” Beeson wrote in an email. “He is a criminal defense attorney who simply does not like the fact that my office does not coddle his clients, does not accede to his wishes in cases, and does not treat his clients with kid gloves.”
Beeson questioned why Silverman didn't seek another candidate to run, or run for the office himself.
“His failure in this regard speaks volumes,” Beeson wrote. “The adage ‘put up or shut up' is an apt one here.”........"
(Read the rest of this? Click title)
Disclaimer:
"Now that DA Beeson has thrown his hat in the ring for district attorney in the 9th, please take note that there will be no special treatment given to any news press surrounding his race. His articles, if they are SandBox worthy or chosen in the daily agg run-up; will be put up just like anyone else in a political race. What SandBox Commentators will continue to do, is heavily moderate his articles. We are the only news media that provides the courtesy of moderating commentary from the general public on 9th Judicial District and Mr. Beeson's articles. )"
February 11, 2012
SandBox Comments: Aspen Times "Jury acquits suspect of assault on Aspen police officer"
(See related story and comments here)
Rick Carroll:
"...While en route to Pitkin County Jail, where Brown was to be held for an indefinite amount of time, he spit at Williams, who testified that saliva went on his neck and shoulder.
“Do you realize you just assaulted a police officer?” Williams says on the video, and then calls his work supervisor to report the crime.
Replied Brown: “I didn't touch you.”
Brown later said: “Are you kidding me? Assault, my a--hole. Third-degree assault on a police officer? You've got to be kidding me.”
Brown's public defender, Elise Myer, had argued that while he behaved inappropriately and said derogatory remarks, he “did not cross the line” to commit assault.
“He's allowed to express himself,” she said. “He's allowed to use words. He shouldn't be subject to criminal liability for that....” (Read more? Click title and link within post)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Rick Carroll:
"...While en route to Pitkin County Jail, where Brown was to be held for an indefinite amount of time, he spit at Williams, who testified that saliva went on his neck and shoulder.
“Do you realize you just assaulted a police officer?” Williams says on the video, and then calls his work supervisor to report the crime.
Replied Brown: “I didn't touch you.”
Brown later said: “Are you kidding me? Assault, my a--hole. Third-degree assault on a police officer? You've got to be kidding me.”
Brown's public defender, Elise Myer, had argued that while he behaved inappropriately and said derogatory remarks, he “did not cross the line” to commit assault.
“He's allowed to express himself,” she said. “He's allowed to use words. He shouldn't be subject to criminal liability for that....” (Read more? Click title and link within post)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
December 28, 2011
SandBox Comments: Aspen Daily News "Alleged cop-spitter heads toward trial"
The truth hurts.
Sometimes, the truth really hurts.
Who decides what the truth is? Who decides what the entire truth is? Are those in obligation to find out going to follow the law and sworn duty while they seek?
What is sworn duty for a cop? What’s different in that oath than the sworn duty of a prosecutor, a defender, a civil attorney? What’s different in the oath between a public defender and a private defender? One would think they are all the same. In the eyes of the folks served, the law says they are the same.
Think again.
Read Colorado rules, ethics, procedures from the perspective of trying to find the common path between all three.
Then go read what they are all bound to, which are the statutes of state and federal law.
Even there in that holy writ of law, read from the perspective of an average citizen trying to find out ‘who’s on first’ and ‘what’s on second’ when it comes to finding the path to holding all three to their sworn duty when there is a simultaneous problem with all three.
Are you aware that in the State of Colorado, in a very similar manner as the bowels of Pitkin and Garfield county’s building, planning and zoning departments, where codes, rules and procedures twist, turn and mate for life while sealing the fate of so many in the construction, development and business industry; that there is a huge and gaping hole that has nobody in charge when there’s a problem with sworn duty in our judicial system?
Oh, there’s an agency that governs ethics and licenses and a commission that governs oversight of judges. There are bar organizations and ethics watch groups. There are definitely laws, rules and procedures that are very strict yet also tempered with the latitude for the personal discretion of the attorneys involved. In the case of cops, they have far less latitude in making judgment calls. Then there is the obligation they all share that if they see a peer or misconduct of any kind they are to report to the court or agency that governs.
Yet, in all this, the State of Colorado Colorado
In Colorado
Most discretion used by persons in positions of trust is honorable and trustworthy. Why worry then if you are an average citizen? Surely, someone along the line will do their duty. Is the problem one then, of relying on individual values or perceptions/interpretations of law? For certain, the former statement is absolute. Most, if not all to some extent, of our service people are honorable and trustworthy. For certain, the latter question is reality.
The way Colorado
In our judicial system, the judge has no access to the problem, the details and the evidence until the attorneys service the law. And then, the court is relying heavily on the trust placed in sworn officers of the court. How many judges in the State of Colorado
Sounds like it’s time for the lawmakers, elected by the folks in the State of Colorado, to have a similar ‘reckoning’ with our statutes, rules and procedures as Pitkin and Garfield counties are doing with their land use codes. Doesn’t it? Sure does. The scope of that thought swells when one realizes that just like county and city codes overlap; we have federal and state overlap in our legal system. The medical marijuana and illegal immigration laws come to mind as examples.
Are you a liberal? A conservative? Doesn’t matter in the least because the law is absolute. However, your political leanings do matter a great deal when you’re unknowingly electing the free will discretion of an attorney or a cop to office or electing to a position that does the hiring and appointing. What do you think of all the heat currently on presidential candidates Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for their hard stance on cleaning up our judicial system? What do you think of presidential candidate Barack Obama asking for more leniency and discretion of sworn officials?
The truth is not complicated. It is not a lot of media flap or even a personal manifesto or open declaration of war with your peers.
The truth is that the law and sworn duty are absolute. Service of both comes first and prior to discretion.
The truth, is that we are a country that has allowed the greatest, most fair and honorable justice system in the world to be tainted by the twists and turns of human beings that have forgotten that the law and oaths to duty are absolute and that they have only their own job to do within the system. Their scope and focus does not overlap into their fellows duties. That is the law and the law is absolute. It is also what our constitution and Bill of Rights mandates.
Cops should never act in a capacity where they are concerned in any way with what a lawyer might need in court. There is no need in any way if they would simply follow their training and their oath to enforce not serve the law. They do not work as an agent for anyone, especially prosecution. One of the most wise comments ‘SandBox Nanny’ has heard on this forum likely came in from a cop: “Old cops know that the best they can do in duty is to prove innocence.”
Attorneys, both prosecution and defense, hold only one job. To serve the law. In our adversarial system, justice is usually found when that creed, that oath is held to the highest standards. The law is absolute. The courtroom is not where we go to find answers or the truth. That was supposed to have been done by law enforcement and prosecution before charging. The law is absolute and that is the law.
It is the job of attorneys, after the burden is fully met and an accusation becomes a charge and the charge becomes a case; to place the integrity of the court into both sides hands, serve that integrity fully and then offer up the end result to the hands of the judge and jury. That is the law and the law is absolute.
It is the job of attorneys, after the burden is fully met and an accusation becomes a charge and the charge becomes a case; to place the integrity of the court into both sides hands, serve that integrity fully and then offer up the end result to the hands of the judge and jury. That is the law and the law is absolute.
We need cops, prosecutors, defenders and civil attorneys who do all they can to ignore the plethora of strategies, loopholes and reliance on those who came before them that laid the “it’s OK” groundwork to distort the lines.
Where the truth really hurts is when the distortion becomes the norm and discretion on any side can no longer be fully trusted as a result.
What an absolutely ridiculous bordering on the absurd, stall technique used by public defender Elise Myer in the case of ‘alleged cop-spitter’ Mark Brown. Good lord, determine whether or not they got that 20-minute taped rant legally and within Brown’s constitutional rights and if so, then defend the man with what you have within law to use. Where is it written that something very much tied to his alleged act against this cop is going to be “prejudicial” enough to be tossed? Give jurors some credit for having brains, your duty is obligated to protect the integrity of the court and you have an obligation to taxpayers to not waste time and money in stall tactics. Not to mention theatrics. If it is not “third-degree assault” to spit at a cop, then leave the theatrics and stall behind and go after the core root of that problem in over-reach. Give the folks some credit for brains and uphold the integrity of your duty to the court not the prosecutor.
What an absolutely ridiculous bordering on the absurd, grand-standing effort on the part of prosecutor Nedlin. Here is a drunk out of his head man, ranting at a cop in a police car for 20 minutes. Maybe the guy deserves the death penalty. To listen to Mr. Nedlin, one becomes ready to leap up and throw the switch. Strap him down! Give jurors some credit for having brains, your duty is obligated to protect the integrity of the court and you have an obligation to taxpayers to not waste time and money in over-reach, zealous prosecution. Not to mention theatrics. It does matter a great deal with the power you hold on whether or not you are over-reaching against an ‘alleged cop-spitter’.
The act of spitting on a cop is not only pure stupidity, it’s worthy of being prosecuted. Is it worth the ‘death penalty’? How come the folks aren’t hearing from the cop in this article, Mr. Travers? From the way it sounds from prosecutor Nedlin, he went ‘running’ into the prosecutor’s office ‘sobbing hysterically’ that he had been treated rudely in a ‘life-threatening manner’ by Mark Brown and waving this tape around as proof. From the way it sounds from defender Myer, Brown was tarred and feathered the minute the tape kicked on in the cop car. Who’s kidding here??! Cops, every day, are shouted at, spit upon, their units thrown up in, arrestees crying and pleading. They also have the latitude to audio or video their focus of interest. If he really did run to prosecutor Nedlin like this, then is this cop a rookie? Or is he simply at the mercy of prosecutor, defense and media discretion, did his job, put Mr. Brown in jail to sober up, wrote a report and walked away only to have DA investigators dig around in what he left behind and subsequently craft prosecutor Nedlin’s script? How does he feel about national coverage over the incident and the protection of the integrity of the judge he stands in front of having to sort out the ‘alleged cop-spitter’ incident?
Or is what we really have here a simple case of the DA’s office using their version of discretion and defender Myer using her version of discretion?
What is it that Judge Fernandez-Ely is now needing to fully rely on her discretion to sort out when reality is that she is stumbling a bit in the dark on the winding path of her court officers? When reality is that her only job is supposed to be upholding the law that is absolute.
With all of the above said, SandBoxBlogs sincerely thanks all our men and women of service to public duty. You are appreciated. It’s just that sometimes, the full truth hurts.
(Read the article? Follow the story? Click title. Comment to discuss)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)