The information regarding People v. Stanley, decided by the Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado and just posted to Westlaw, highlights the misconduct of Stanley, the District Attorney of Colorado’s 11th Judicial District. Stanley made improper extrajudicial statements to the media during the prosecution of Barry Morphew, leading to a change in venue due to potential prejudice. Additionally, Stanley failed to adequately supervise the case, resulting in discovery violations and other issues within the prosecution team. Furthermore, Stanley’s attempt to investigate Judge Lama’s former spouse without credible evidence ultimately led to the dismissal of the case. The full opinion delves into more details, with Member Caloia dissenting in part and pointing out the complexities of criminal law in rural jurisdictions and questioning the findings related to the interview of Judge Lama’s wife. The decision of the respondent to conduct an interview with Iris Lama was based on valid reasons, particularly Judge Lama’s exclusion of evidence in the Morphew case involving domestic violence. Iris Lama’s involvement with the Alliance Against Domestic Abuse and her advocacy for missing individuals, including Suzanne Morphew, further justified the respondent’s decision to look into the allegations raised in the change.org petition.
The manner in which the respondent conducted the inquiry into potential judicial bias was also commendable. Despite the recommended best practices of involving an outside agency, the respondent sought assistance from the Chaffee County Sheriff and the CBI, both of whom declined to participate. The respondent then proceeded to have Corey interview Iris Lama in a voluntary and confidential manner, ensuring that the interview was conducted respectfully and without any coercion. The prosecution did not pursue further investigative actions, and the case was ultimately dismissed shortly after the interview, with no prejudice to the justice system.
In conclusion, the respondent’s decision to interview Iris Lama fell within the bounds of prosecutorial discretion. It is important to note that prosecutors should be able to ask citizens questions regarding potential wrongdoing without facing restrictions. The respondent’s actions did not appear to be an attempt to prejudice the administration of justice, especially considering that the allegations and the interview were not made public. As such, the risk of harassment, intimidation, or retaliation was deemed low.
Regarding the appropriate sanction in this case, the dissenting opinion suggests a two and a half-year suspension for the respondent, with the requirement to prove compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct before returning to the practice of law.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Member Harper raised concerns about the respondent’s diligence in prosecuting the Morphew case. However, the majority opinion supported the respondent’s actions in the panel’s decision, with different members joining different parts of the opinion.
The majority opinion also provides background information on the respondent, highlighting her journey from a career in criminal justice and law enforcement to becoming a prosecutor. Despite personal experiences with domestic violence, the respondent pursued a legal education with a focus on public administration and domestic violence prevention. Her career as a prosecutor has been marked by a commitment to prioritizing cold cases, leading to her election as district attorney.
Overall, the respondent’s background and actions in these cases, although subject to scrutiny, reflect a journey of personal growth and dedication to pursuing justice within the legal system.
Source link
