Thursday, July 18, 2013


Brass Tacks

 

I hope all readers are interested in the radical legal move to testify to the Larimer County Grand Jury.  What is really at issue here is the divergence between the interest of the district attorney’s office and the public interest represented by the Grand Jury.

 

The Grand Jury is the constitutional construct for public inquiry and accusation of criminal offenses.  Over time our blessed people’s prosecutors have superseded the accusation function of the grand jury.  Where previously all criminal acts had to be prosecuted upon an “indictment” from a Grand Jury, criminal offenses are now charged by an “information” from the district / state’s attorney.  Objectively, this does have the appearance of streamlining the charging – and convicting- process.  Of course focusing the criminal accusing process on an elected D.A. politicizes things and streamlined accusing becomes less objective.

 

This is where a grand jury is supposed to be called in to objectively evaluate the evidence against the accused in order to reach a decision to indict in the public interest.

 

Here is the ‘rub’ in my conflict with the Colorado Eighth District’s D.A.’s office;  they have an interest to maintain my fraudulent plea and avoid any investigation of my conviction, in abject opposition to the public interest.  To address the extremely divergent interests of the D.A. and the public I have appealed to the “civil remit” of the Grand Jury to force an investigation.

 

Since the Grand Jury is constitutionally founded to serve the public interest of fairly investigating and charging accused persons of crimes, the public is free to testify to the Grand Jury about crimes “not yet under investigation.”  That is to say: The Grand Jury is the original unobstructed interface of the public to pose an “accusation” to the criminal courts.  Over generations of many long serving and politically motivated D.A.’s this foundational paradigm has been reduced to a quaint artifact that a D.A. uses at their self-interested discretion, (e.g. Boston Marathon bomber is under Grand Jury indictment, opposed to directly charged by the state’s attorney.)

 

Man, do I hope – militantly –that this offends every effete and arrogant instinct of every prosecutor who believes that the grand jury is exclusively their dusty tool to be pulled of the shelf at the whim of their need to showcase political ego. The Colorado statute I am testifying under (§16-5-204 (4) (1), quite explicitly states that anyone may testify to the Grand Jury about any criminal offense.

 

The element of public interest surrounding Grand Jury law goes even further.  (Read the ‘brief’ to the Grand Jury for the explicitly cited legal argument.)  It states, if a Grand Jury opts to not hear testimony the head judge can compel them to sit and hear the testimony if, it serves the public interest.  Then if they choose to not indict there are conditions of public interest which I argue in the ‘brief’ that I meet, that require the Grand Jury to produce a public report.  The operating rules for prosecutors have none of these binding responsibilities to the public.

 

So that is the beef. 

 

I am sure the prosecutors think I am out-of-bounds for testifying directly to their Grand Jury yet, they are not out-of bounds for fabricating a false story of the circumstances of the homicide.  They disavowed the evidence and true facts, forcing and co-signing the fraudulent plea and whatever extortive threats they pushed on my defense attorney.

 

[I have to say here that “Jason gives his public defender much more credit than she deserves.”  If one can’t stand up for the truth under political pressure then maybe they should be in another profession, not one where the legal rights of others are at risk. Mary-Ellen]

 

Please stay tuned and I promise you can observe the D.A.’s office subvert the Grand Jury process and stomp on your and my rights just a little bit more.  How could the rights of the Office of our District Attorney not prevail over individual rights?

 

My experience is that prosecutors are only dismissive and concede nothing – hey, it’s just personal, not professional.  (Listen to the statements of any prosecutor upon the exoneration of someone they have falsely prosecuted.)  How could that modus operandi not prevail yet again?

 

 

 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly The grand jury is a checks and balances mechanism for citizen protection and recourse when the criminal justice system needs some help.

Any citizen may ask for a grand jury, better that a legislator ask. Citizens are ignored.

Recall that the grand jury forewoman for Lt.Broderick's felony perjury charges asked why the DA operates as the legal advisor to local law enforcement, instead of separate government entities. A DA has discretion to prosecute. Unchecked power corrupts.

The new DA did get the MOU in place which states the understanding that law enforcement must disclose when a cop breaks the law. Its not binding - its an "understanding". Not sure how its working out.