KnowYourCOURTS.com

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).

Do District Attorneys prosecute perjury against ordinary citizens?

 (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.

J.S. v. Chambers, No. 09CA1396 (Colo.App. September 17, 2009) (The district attorney's charging decision is afforded a "presumption" of correctness, which the challenging party must overcome by clear and convincing evidence. An order requiring the prosecutor to explain the refusal does not shift the burden of proof to the prosecutor. And absent a clear abuse of discretion, a judge may not substitute his judgment or discretion for that of the prosecutor").

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 (10^th 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)

---

** If you have information, corrections or updates regarding this site, please contact us: tipline@knowYourCourts.com

 

back to Documents Main page

 

last updated: 12/19/2007

tipline@KnowYourCOURTS.com