District attorneys

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Overview &
Summary
GEORGE H. BRAUCHLER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
C HAPTER 1
18th Judicial
District
The 18th Judicial District is the most
populous and fastest growing judicial
district in the State of Colorado. It
encompasses Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert
and Lincoln Counties. The District
Attorney is George H. Brauchler.
S ECTION 1
History, Geography, &
Population
H IGHLIGHTS
• The 18th Judicial District was established in 1962
by an amendment to the Colorado Constitution.
• Today, the 18th Judicial District is the most
populous and fastest growing district in the State
of Colorado.
• With approximately 18% of Coloradans within its
borders, the judicial district is larger by square
miles than the State of Connecticut.
• The 18th Judicial District would be the 47th most
populous state in the U.S.
HISTORY
Colorado is divided into 22 judicial districts, numbered
according to the date they came into existence.
On November 6, 1962, voters approved the legislativelyreferred constitutional amendment known as the Colorado
Reorganization of Judicial Department, Measure 1 (1962),
establishing the creation of the 18th Judicial District (18th
JD).
In 1964, the Colorado General Assembly established that the
18th JD would be comprised of Arapahoe and Douglas
counties (Session Laws 1964, Ch. 42, Sect. 19, p. 401). Twenty
days later, Elbert County was included (Session Laws 1964,
Ch. 43, Sect. 2, p. 405).
The three-county 18th JD became effective on January 11,
1965 (Session Laws, 1964, Ch. 42, Sect. 31, p. 404).
In 1969, the Colorado General Assembly added Lincoln
county to the 18th JD (Session Laws 1969, Ch. 102, Sect. 4, p.
261, see also C.R.S. sec. 13-5-119(1)).
GEOGRAPHY
Colorado is the 8th largest state in the U.S. by total area,
104,093.67 square miles.
The 18th JD, comprised of Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and
Lincoln counties, encompasses 6,085.33 square miles, or
5.8% of Colorado.
2
Metro Area Judicial Districts
POPULATION
COUNTIES
SQ MI
1st
Jefferson, Gilpin
924.29
2nd
Denver
4th
COUNTIES
SQ MI
Arapahoe
805.44
154.63
Douglas
842.87
El Paso, Teller
2,683.80
Elbert
1,851.02
17th
Adams, Broomfield
1,989.34
Lincoln
2,586
18th
Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert,
Lincoln
6,085.33
TOTAL
6,085.33
Colorado is the 22nd most populous state in the U.S. with
5,029,186 people as measured by the 2010 Census.
The 18th Judicial District by County
Compared to States
Population Growth in the 18th JD
By comparison to states, the 18th JD would be the 47th largest
state in the country. The states of Rhode Island, Delaware
and Connecticut are smaller in square miles than the 18th JD.
STATES & 18TH JD
SQ MI
18th JD
6.085.33
Connecticut
5,543.41
Delaware
2,488.72
Rhode Island
1,544.89
By 2020, the population of the 18th JD is expected to be triple
that of its 1980 total.
1960
1980
2000
2010
2020
Arapahoe
113,426
293,292
487,967
572,003
670,882
Douglas
4,816
25,153
175,766
285,465
349,393
Elbert
3,708
6,850
19,872
23,086
36,130
Lincoln
5,310
4,663
6,087
5,467
5,931
Total
127,260
329,958
689,692
886,021
1,062,336
3
Population Growth in the Denver Metro Area
Demographic Information of the 18th JD
According to the U.S. Census, although the 18th JD remains
the fastest growing jurisdiction in the Denver-metro area, all
metro-area JDs (except the 1st) are expected to experience at
least a 1/3rd increase in population from 2000-2020.
According to the U.S. Census, African Americans or Blacks
make up 10.2% of Arapahoe and Denver Counties; Arapahoe
and Douglas counties have the highest percentage of Asians in
Colorado at 5.1% and 3.8% respectively.
2000
2010
2020
1st JD
531,813
539,984
586,787
2nd JD
554,636
600,158
732,907
4th JD
537,484
645,613
758,828
17th JD
402,129
497,492
599,506
18th JD
689,692
886,021
1,062,336
1,100,000
The 18th Judicial District Demographics
FEMALE
MEDIAN
AGE
65+
WHITE
Arapahoe
51.0
35.7
10.1
72.7
Douglas
50.5
36.6
7.1
90.2
Elbert
50.0
43.8
9.5
94.7
Lincoln
42.1
40.9
16.8
89.0
The 18th Judicial Family Breakdown
825,000
NON-FAMILY
AVG. FAMILY
SIZE
Arapahoe
34.8
3.13
Douglas
22.5
3.20
Elbert
19.8
3.05
Lincoln
37.9
2.90
550,000
275,000
0
1st JD
18th JD
2000
2nd JD
2010
4th JD
2020
17th JD
4
S ECTION 2
The District Attorney
H IGHLIGHTS
• George Brauchler is the first Douglas County
resident in the history of the 18th Judicial
District Attorney’s Office, to be elected as District
Attorney.
• In 2013, the 18th JD-elected District Attorney
sought and received the lowest DA salary in
Colorado and was paid less than 65% of the other
metro area District Attorneys.
• District Attorneys are limited to two consecutive
four-year terms.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY GEORGE H. BRAUCHLER
George H. Brauchler is the
District Attorney of Colorado’s
18th Judicial District. He was
elected in November 2012 and
took the oath of office as District
Attorney on January 8, 2013.
DA Brauchler is an experienced
prosecutor and civil trial
attorney, a national trainer of
prosecutors, and a U.S. Army
Reserve Judge Advocate
General officer. He brings new
vision, energy, and leadership to
the Office of the District Attorney for the 18th JD.
DA Brauchler began his legal career in 1995 at the Jefferson
County District Attorney’s Office where he prosecuted
domestic violence, homicide, larceny and narcotics cases and
most-notably, the only two felony cases arising out of the
Columbine High School massacre.
The District Attorney is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United
States Army Reserve and has served his country in the JAG
corps since 1996. He has been called to active duty twice since
9/11. In 2011, he saw active duty as Chief of Military Justice
for Fort Carson, and ultimately, the Fourth Infantry Division,
US Division-North, Task Force Ironhorse in Tikrit, Iraq.
5
DA Brauchler worked in private practice from 2008-2010 and
from 2011 until December of 2012, during which time he
handled civil litigation, criminal defense, and represented
veterans and victims of crime.
YEARS
FROM
Michael Miller
1965-1969
Arapahoe
Robert Gallagher
1969-1997
Arapahoe
James Peters
1997-2005
Arapahoe
Carol Chambers
2005-2013
Arapahoe
George Brauchler
2013-Present
Douglas
QUALIFICATIONS & TERMS
Article VI, Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution states
(emphasis added):
He obtained both his Bachelor's Degree and law degree (Juris
Doctor) at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
DA Brauchler has lived in Colorado for more than 40 years.
He and his wife live in Douglas County and have four
children.
THE 18TH JD DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
Since the creation of the 18th JD in 1964, there have been five
District Attorneys.
District attorneys - election - term - salary qualifications. In each judicial district there shall be a
district attorney elected by the electors thereof, whose term
of office shall be four years. District attorneys shall
receive such salaries and perform such duties as provided by
law. No person shall be eligible to the office of district
attorney who shall not, at the time of his election possess all
the qualifications of district court judges as provided in this
article. All district attorneys holding office on the effective
date of this amendment shall continue in office for the
remainder of the respective terms for which they were
elected or appointed.
District Attorneys are limited to two consecutive fouryear terms. However, “[t]he voters of any such political
6
subdivision may lengthen, shorten or eliminate the limitations
on terms of office....” Article XVIII, Section 11, Colorado
Constitution.
The BOCCs approved a tiered salary scale (in
dollars):
2013
2014
2015
2016
130,000
143,000
156,000
165,000
Salaries of the Metro-Area District Attorneys (2013)
(in dollars):
1ST JD
2ND JD
4TH JD
17TH JD
18TH JD
208,000
207,000
183,000
203,859
130,000
What the Data Reflects
SALARY
The statutory minimum salary for a District Attorney
anywhere in Colorado is $130,000 per year. The Boards of
County Commissioners (BOCCs) of the counties comprising a
judicial district may set an amount in excess of that minimum
salary. Colo. Rev. Stat. sec. 20-1-301.
Upon election in November 2012, DA Brauchler negotiated
with the BOCCs of the 18th JD a reduction from the
predecessor’s salary of $160,000 to the legal minimum
$130,000.
$210,000
$180,000
$150,000
$120,000
$90,000
$60,000
$30,000
$0
1st
208000
Annual Salaries (Metro Area)
2nd
4th
17th
18th
7
C HAPTER 2
Prosecution
The main function of the Office of the
District Attorney is the prosecution of
violations of Colorado’s criminal statutes
occurring within the 18th Judicial
District. The office employs 79
prosecutors.
S ECTION 1
Intake & Charging
H IGHLIGHTS
• The Intake team is often the first unit that will
see and review a case in the District Attorney’s
Office.
• In 2013, the Intake Unit filed 3,770 felony cases
and declined to file charges on 405 cases.
• The Intake Unit works with law enforcement to
ensure that all the relevant information about the
case gets to the prosecutors.
MISSION STATEMENT
Sometimes referred to as “the tip of
the spear” in any criminal
prosecution, an Intake team exists in
Arapahoe and Douglas counties to
advise and assist police
investigations, review search
warrants submitted as part of a
police investigation, and file formal
criminal charges.
Other important Intake functions include providing training
to local police agencies; representing the People when
defendants first appear in court; and arguing for an
appropriate bond that will ensure that the defendant returns
to court and the community remains safe during the pendency
of the case.
STAFFING
The Intake team is staffed by a chief, who is the office’s
primary liaison with the police agencies, four deputies
experienced in prosecuting felony cases and especially wellversed in investigative techniques and constitutional law, a
county court deputy who conducts the felony advisements,
and four secretaries.
9
FILING CHARGES
The most visible Intake duty is the filing of charges via a
complaint. With the exception sexual assault and
misdemeanor cases which are handled by the Special Victims
Unit and County Court teams respectively, the Intake deputies
file all felony and juvenile cases in both Arapahoe and
Douglas counties.
Potential filings are submitted by police agencies and then
meticulously reviewed by the Intake deputies to determine
whether the People can prove the charges with “a reasonable
likelihood of success” at trial (e.g., prove the charges beyond a
reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of twelve – a very high
burden).
Felony Filings & Process
Felony cases filed in the 18th JD (not including Juvenile
cases):
2011
2012
2013
3,559
3,821
3,770
The Intake deputies have enormous discretion in deciding
when to file charges. Before filing felony charges against
anyone, the informal criteria of our office are: (1) we most
know they committed the crime; (2) we must know we can
prove that they committed the crime; and, (3) we must
determine that it is the right thing to do.
A significant amount of discretion is exercised, including the
community’s safety, the fair implementation of justice and the
lifelong consequences faced by any citizen who will be judged
a felon.
“No-File” Decisions
At times, there are cases where a filing and an office-signed
probable cause affidavit that our office decides not to file.
These cases are called “No-File” decisions. Before making this
decision, our office discusses it with the detective and the
victim.
No-File decisions involving felony arrests and submitted case
filings:
2010
2011
2012
2013
572
734
619
405
A large part of work for the Intake deputies is advising and
guiding on-going investigations towards a case that could
ultimately lead to charges. This often involves meeting with
the assigned detective(s) in person and reviewing documents,
photographs, video and other evidence, and in some cases
sitting in on witness interviews.
Every day, the deputies assigned to the Intake team review
numerous search warrants and other court orders, often
requiring several drafts with detectives before it can either be
rejected or approved and taken before a judge.
10
Warrants & Orders
Our office regularly assists law enforcement agencies seeking
out warrants, Production of Records (POR) and court orders
for non-testimonial identification evidence.
Search warrants and court orders approved each year since
2011:
2011
2012
2013
1,105
972
1,086
Intake deputies are required to keep some cases of their own
– usually homicides – that they will prosecute through trial.
Additionally, Intake deputies regularly conduct trainings at
police agencies and police academies and organize a multi-day
“Investigators’ Academy” once a year.
11
S ECTION 2
County Court
H IGHLIGHTS
• Arapahoe County has the fewest county court
divisions (6) in the metro area.
• Douglas County has two county court divisions
that handle misdemeanor and traffic violations.
• Elbert and Lincoln Counties have one prosecutor
each to manage their entire docket.
• Arapahoe County Deputy District Attorneys
handle more cases per courtroom than their
metro-area counterparts.
MISSION STATEMENT
By statute, county courts
handle civil cases under
$15,000, misdemeanors,
traffic infractions, felony
complaints (which may be
sent to district court),
protection orders, and
small claims.
Misdemeanor charges include: assault, child abuse, theft,
violation of protective orders, DUI and others.
County court convictions may be appealed to the district
court.
STAFFING
Arapahoe: There are six courtrooms which handle criminal/
traffic matters to which our office is assigned. Three
courtrooms handle only traffic violations, including DUIs/
DWAIs. There is one prosecutor assigned to each of these
courtrooms. Three courtrooms handle misdemeanor
violations. Two prosecutors are assigned to each of these
courtrooms. There is a Chief Deputy (supervisor) and a lead
prosecutor (senior misdemeanor deputy).
Douglas: Two courtrooms handle a diversified criminal docket
of misdemeanor and traffic violations. These divisions handle
all domestic violence and DUI/DWAI cases. Each courtroom
has one trial date set per week.
12
The First Appearance Center (FAC) handles the first
appearance of all criminal defendants coming into Douglas
County for misdemeanor
and felony cases. First
appearance includes
advisements by the court,
bond arguments, and
entry of the mandatory
protection order. A
magistrate presides over
the FAC. In addition to
first appearances, the FAC
handles a docket of minor traffic and misdemeanor cases with
defendants who do not object to magistrate jurisdiction. Two
prosecutors are assigned to each of the diversified docket
divisions, and a supervisor/lead (senior misdemeanor deputy)
is assigned to the FAC to handle first advisements and oversee
interns who assist in that courtroom. The Chief Deputy
supervises all prosecutors and interns, and works with law
enforcement, the courts, probation, and the defense on
relevant issues.
2013 Comparative staffing and filings (metro area)
Elbert and Lincoln: 1 prosecutor is assigned in each county to
cover the entire criminal docket, including district, county
(misdemeanor and traffic), and juvenile court.
• a slower rate of case
resolution, cases take
longer to resolve
#DA
#MISD
#TRAF
TOTAL
#COURT
Adams
14
7421
14,971
22,392
7
El Paso
15
8043
14,410
22,453
15
Jefferson
11
6740
13,301
20,045
8
Arapahoe
11
6076
15,221
21,297
6
Douglas
7
2649
5481
8130
3
Arapahoe
+Douglas
18
8725
20,702
29,427
9
ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
Issue #1: Arapahoe County
has less county court
divisions to handle its cases
than all other metro-area
jurisdictions. More cases
per courtroom results in:
• fewer opportunities to resolve cases through jury trials
Solution #1: Arapahoe County and its growing population
would benefit from two additional county courts in the short
13
term, which would only match Jefferson County currently.
Jefferson County’s population is growing at a more stagnant
rate than Arapahoe County’s. El Paso County, with a
comparable number of total cases, has two and one-half times
the number of court divisions (15) as Arapahoe County.
Comparative entry-level salaries in $ (metro area)
2013 - 14
1st (Jefferson)
56,500
2nd (Denver)
61,565
17th (Adams)
58,848
20th (Boulder)
56,424 - 58,000
18th
57,000
AVG
56,723
AVG w/o 4th
58,067
commitment to the office, the office provided salary increases
after each of the first three years of prosecution for our entrylevel prosecutors, as follows:
0
1
2
57,000
60,000
63,000
Subsequent pay raises are the product of either 1) promotions,
or 2) merit increases.
Issue #2: Previously, significant loss of prosecutors within the
first several years of their careers strained the office’s ability
to keep trained and experienced prosecutors in the
courtroom, as well as encourage long-term prosecutors to
progress through-and-manage district (felony) courts.
Solution #2: In 2013, to reduce significant turn-over and to
encourage a greater return on our office’s investment in
training new prosecutors by securing a longer term
14
S ECTION 3
Juvenile Court
H IGHLIGHTS
• In 2013, changes to the Juvenile Code increased
the subject matter for the juvenile prosecution
unit to include a juvenile deputy assigned to all
transfer and reverse transfer hearings on murder
and attempted murder (all F-1 and F-2 felony)
prosecutions where we are seeking to have a
juvenile tried as an adult.
• Juvenile deputies now serve on a variety of
committees and task forces throughout the
community, with our partner professionals.
• The juvenile unit has been reviewing and
working with schools to improve the threat
assessment process to encourage more open and
timely sharing of information among agencies
and schools.
MISSION STATEMENT
Juvenile prosecution is a
highly specialized unit
comprised of deputy district
attorneys, victim witness
specialists and investigators
all committed to serve the
18th JD’s populations,
specifically, our future adult
population. Cases range from
school weapon and threat cases, sexting, drug use and
possession, and include sexual assault on children, burglary,
aggravated robbery, aggravated motor vehicle theft, credit
card and identity theft as well as a variety of gang related
crimes.
STAFFING
The Juvenile Unit is comprised of: Chief Deputy DA, 3 fulltime Deputy DAs, 4 half-time Deputy DAs; and 3 victimwitness specialists. We also have a senior deputy and victim
advocate in Lincoln and a senior deputy and victim advocate
in Elbert.
STATISTICS
• 1368 cases were filed by our juvenile units in 2013.
• We also diverted 588 cases to our successful diversion
program.
15
• Juvenile deputies advised law enforcement and are working
on increasing judicial awareness of the serious impact
juvenile offenders have on individuals and communities.
Specifically, there has been marked upswing in terms of
home and business burglaries
• Juvenile deputies attend the court sponsored human
trafficking committee which is developing systems and
protocols to help juveniles trapped into prostitution and
other crimes. Additionally, they attend the juvenile sex
offender probation task force meetings.
COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES
• Juvenile deputies attend monthly law enforcement meetings
both in our office and at the Aurora Police Department to
learn of their specific problems and target crime trends.
Based on the best practices belief that juveniles succeed best
with the least invasive law enforcement contacts, juvenile
deputies and specialists participate in a range of multi-agency
task forces and committees with law enforcement and other
partner professionals. This participation is unprecedented in
the 18th JD:
• Our Chief Deputy in Arapahoe attends and serves as Vicepresident of the board of the Juvenile Services Planning
Commission, which determines funding for juvenile afterschool programs, pre-trial services, educational and
individualized therapy programs, the family resource center,
and is working jointly to implement a low-risk offender
program.
• Our Chief Deputy in Arapahoe is the DA’s representative to
the Minority Over-Representation Committee. This
organization is a nationally funded study of two
communities in the country, one of which is Arapahoe
County. This organization is exploring ways to reduce the
number of minorities in the juvenile criminal system and
detention.
• Our Chief Deputy in Arapahoe attended the exclusive
Models for Change conference in Washington DC to learn
what is being done nationwide in juvenile justice system
reform as well as federally available resources. This
conference included cutting edge training in neuroscience
and adolescent development and evidence based treatment
for low risk offenders. Our Chief Deputy in Arapahoe also
serves on the Family Preservation Commission and the
Supreme Court problem solving court training and
education subcommittee.
• Our deputies have been instrumental in revitalizing the
Juvenile section of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council
to allow the sharing of legal research and experience across
judicial district lines.
• Our deputies are visiting other district attorney’s offices
throughout Colorado to learn what programs they have
developed which could be implemented in the 18th to
improve our juvenile justice system.
16
S ECTION 4
Juvenile Diversion
Program
H IGHLIGHTS
• Juvenile Diversion offers juvenile offenders and
their families a counseling program that
emphasizes accountability and growth.
• When compared with the juvenile justice system,
Diversion is a highly cost-effective and successful
program.
• The foundations of the program are therapydriven prevention, intervention and
accountability.
• Juvenile Diversion acknowledges that every
participant is unique and one size does not fit all
when it comes to counseling.
MISSION & VISION
In an atmosphere of
professionalism and
excellence, Juvenile
Diversion provides
counseling and support
to juvenile offenders and
their families. The
program creates
opportunities for change
with an emphasis on accountability and personal growth.
The program strives to create an effective, evidenced-based,
comprehensive, multi-modal outpatient counseling program.
OVERVIEW
Every part of the Juvenile
Diversion program is built on
the research-supported belief
that encouraging strong
connections and meaningful
experiences is the most
effective way to keep
adolescents out of trouble.
Through its wide array of
therapy approaches and
services, Diversion gives its
clients powerful opportunities
17
for expressing pent-up emotions, for gaining the skills and
strength that builds stable identity and self-esteem, and for
feeling the power of another’s positive regard.
The foundations of the program are
therapy-driven prevention,
intervention and accountability. Our
outpatient mental health services
include individual, family and group
therapies that promote insight,
communication and coping skills.
2013%Discharge%Dispos1on%of%All%Accepted%Cases%
Returned$Viola<on/New$
Charges$
30$
Returned$NonCcompliant$
24$
2$
Closed$Unsuccessfully$
36$
Missed$2+$Appointments$
23$
291$
Returned$Not$Appropriate$
for$Program$
Returned$Denied$Juvenile$
Diversion$
We give our clients the tools they need
to manage mental health issues such
as depression, anxiety or ADHD and to conquer challenges
with drugs and alcohol, negative peer influences, family
struggles and involvement with the legal system.
We tailor treatment to meet each client’s unique needs,
offering the most innovative, effective and proven practices,
such as EMDR, sand-play therapy, animal-assisted therapy
and experiential therapy. Our clients are held accountable for
their choices and the consequences of those choices to
themselves and others, and they must fulfill rigorous program
requirements to successfully resolve their cases.
Successfully$completed$
44$
JDCP%Recidivism%Rates%
JDCP%recidivism%rates%by%year%(percent):%
2006%
2007%
2008%
2009%
2010%
2011%
2012%
2013%
Sample'size:'
173'
172'
155'
290'
267'
296'
154'
191'
Clients'who'had'misdemeanor'or'felony'
charges'at'six'months'
2.31'
2.90'
3.8'
3.8'
3.4'
1.7'
4.5'
1.57'
Clients'who'had'misdemeanor'or'felony'
charges'at'12'months'
4.62'
4.65'
6'
6.6'
7.5'
3.7'
4.5'
3.6'
Clients'who'had'misdemeanor'or'felony'
charges'at'18'months'
10'
6.97'
7.5'
9'
10.5'
5.1'
5.1'
n/a'
Clients'who'had'misdemeanor'or'felony'
charges'at'24'months'
10'
12.9'
9'
11.4'
12.7'
5.4'
11'
n/a'
Results are based on a random sample of 50 percent of clients who successfully completed JDCP.
Time intervals are post-discharge. Recidivism results are based on adjudications and/or convictions
reflected in the following criminal justice databases: NCIC/CCIC and LexisNexis. Recidivism rates
for clients successfully discharged in 2009 were determined through NCIC/CCIC, Court Link
(previously LexisNexis) and an additional 18th Judicial District database, ReAction.
18
!
2012!Annual!Cost!and!Success!Rates!Per!Client!
While these two programs
are different and cannot be
used objectively for
comparative analysis, the
outcomes from both
programs indicate that
diversion is a cost-effective
and highly successful
intervention.
Juvenile faces
a district level charge
JDCP
$770
18th Juvenile Probation
$1,630
2012 success rate:
85 percent*
2012 success rate:
73 percent*
One year post-program
release recidivism rate:
Six percent**
One year post-program
release recidivism
rate:
14 percent**
Currently, diversion programs are offered voluntarily by districts and are not required by the state.
*Success is defined as completing the program with a positive termination.
**Post-release recidivism for probation is defined as a filing for felony or misdemeanor charges within one year of termination from program
placement for a criminal offense. Recidivism for JDCP is defined as a misdemeanor and/or felony adjudication or conviction within one
year of termination from the program. Information is based on FY2008 terminations remaining successful one year after release. 9
(Recidivism Report-FY2009, Colorado State Judicial Branch)
19
S ECTION 5
District Court
OVERVIEW
Colorado’s District Courts hear criminal felony cases, juvenile
matters, civil cases in any monetary amount, as well as
domestic relations, probate, and mental health cases. District
court decisions may be appealed to the Colorado Court of
Appeals and in some cases directly to the Colorado Supreme
Court. District Court judges also hear appeals from County
Court decisions.
H IGHLIGHTS
STAFFING
• Beyond cases that are managed by specialized
units, District Court prosecutors are responsible
for prosecuting felony level cases.
Arapahoe: 2 felony-level prosecutors are assigned to each of
the 9 criminal divisions/courtrooms. 3 chief deputy district
attorneys supervise the lawyers in those 8 criminal divisions.
• Through committee membership and serving on
multi-disciplinary task forces and working
groups, the District Attorney’s Office represents
the public’s interest both in and out of the
courtroom.
Douglas: 1 felony-level prosecutor is assigned to each of the 3
criminal divisions/courtrooms. 1 chief deputy district attorney
is assigned to supervise the lawyers in those 3 criminal
divisions.
• 18th JD prosecutors’ starting district court
salaries are below the metro-area average.
Elbert and Lincoln: 1 senior deputy district attorney
prosecutor is assigned in each county to cover the entire
criminal docket, including district, county, and juvenile court.
These senior-level prosecutors are responsible for the
prosecution of all levels of serious crime. The only cases
excluded are those handled by the specialized units (Special
Victims and Economic Crime Units). These cases range from
drug-related felonies to property crimes, to weapons offenses,
to serious injury assault, sexual assault, robbery and murder.
20
Comparative district court entry-level salaries in
dollars ($):
Felony case filings by county within the 18th JD per the
Colorado State Judicial branch (FY: 01 July-30 June):
2013
1st (Jefferson)
67,500/75,000
2nd (Denver)
82,342
17th (Adams)
73,608
20th (Boulder)
83,424
18th
70,200
AVG
75,000
Comparative Senior Deputy DA (or equivalent)
salaries in dollars ($):
2010
2011
2012
2013
Arapahoe
3,093
2,842
2,679
2,917
Douglas
778
706
760
852
Elbert
66
90
64
72
Lincoln
68
75
71
89
Total
4,005
3,713
3,574
3,930
Felony case filings by JD (metro area) per the Colorado State
Judicial branch (FY: 01 July-30 June):
2010
2011
2012
2013
1st
3,617
3,776
3,526
3,571
2nd
4,343
4,017
3,985
4,696
17th
3,829
4,156
3,757
4,158
18th
4,005
3,713
3,574
3,930
2013
1st (Jefferson)
98,000
2nd (Denver)
92,145
17th (Adams)
84,660
18th
90,000
AVG
88,961
Committees, Task Forces, Volunteerism
AVG w/o 4th
91,201
Partnerships with other criminal justice agencies, community
organizations, and the counties’ citizens are necessary in
order to achieve justice. Through committee membership and
21
serving on multi-disciplinary task forces and working groups,
the District Attorney’s Office represents the public’s interest
both in and out of the courtroom.
drafting and implementing policies and procedures for use
in the 18th JD’s Veterans Court program.
Chief Deputy District Attorneys:
• Private citizen participation on the Board of the 18th JD’s
Juvenile Assessment Center.
• Membership on the 18th JD’s Community Corrections
Board.
• Volunteer contribution to the Colorado Bar Association
Leadership Training program (COBALT).
• Membership on the 18th Judicial District’s Wellness Court
and Recovery Court Steering Committees.
• Multiple ongoing volunteer relationships with elementary,
middle, and high schools supporting literacy, education, and
advocacy.
• Participate in several law enforcement working groups,
including the South Area Commanders and Law
Enforcement Executives groups, and task forces targeting
illegal narcotic distribution and other criminal activity.
• Participation in the jurisdiction’s Critical Response Team,
reviewing cases and submitting reports regarding use of
deadly force by law enforcement officers.
• Membership on the Colorado District Attorney Council’s
Pleading Committee, drafting charging codes for charging
and tracking of offenders.
Deputy District Attorneys:
• Partner with federal authorities on Southern Colorado and
Front Range Drug Task Forces.
• Participate in working group addressing Veterans Treatment
issues through the criminal justice system, including
Significant Trials
People v. Michael Medina: The victim,
Kimberly Greene, went missing in 1996
after an argument with her husband,
Michael Medina. The investigation into
her death went cold until in 2005, when
during a domestic violence incident the
defendant threatened his new girlfriend
and mother of their 18 month old son by
stating he would kill the child. To prove
he could and would kill the child, he confessed to killing
Kimberly Greene ten years earlier. After his new girlfriend
reported his statements to the police, he followed through on
his threat and killed the child. Even though Ms. Greene’s
remains were never found, the defendant was convicted at
trial of Murder in the First Degree and sentenced to life in
prison without the possibility of parole.
22
People v. Robert Todd: In this domestic
violence case, the defendant broke into his
estranged wife’s trailer in Byers, Colorado,
attacking her and her boyfriend. He
attempted to kill his wife with 2 large
kitchen knives and in the process nearly
severed her hand, and seriously injured
her face. The defendant then sexually
assaulted the victim in front of their 10year-old son. The defendant was convicted of all charges and
was sentenced to 125 years to life in prison. People v. Desean Owens: The defendant, a
habitual criminal, broke into his
girlfriend’s apartment, dragged her naked
out of the home at knifepoint and in the
process caused serious injury to her finger,
which later had to be amputated. After
having dragged her into his car, the
defendant terrorized the victim by
threatening to kill her while driving her
around the city. The defendant was
sentenced to 32 years in prison. The
District Attorney’s Office is appealing this
sentence, as a longer one is required by
law.
People v. Joseph Gomez: The defendant
broke into the victim’s home and sexually
assaulted her at knifepoint while her
husband was asleep in the bedroom. Through use of the
statewide electronic DNA database (CODIS) the defendant
was identified as the perpetrator and convicted at trial. The
defendant was sentenced to 22 years to life in prison.
People v. Warrior and Noble: In this case
involving the perpetrators dubbed the
“Buckley/Bello Bandits,” both men were
tried separately in 2013 and convicted of
multiple armed robberies of businesses in
Aurora in 2010. Between Aurora and
Denver, Brendan Warrior and Jaylen
Noble were responsible for at least 10
armed robberies.
In 2013, Brendan Warrior was found
guilty of 18 counts of Aggravated Robbery,
Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated
Robbery and Theft. Warrior and his
accomplices held 7 people in Aurora at
gunpoint and took cash from businesses
and fled.
Warrior was sentenced to 25 years in prison and Noble
received a 45-year sentence.
Noble was found guilty on 16 of 17 counts, and was sentenced
to 45 years in the Department of Corrections.
23
S ECTION 6
Special Victims Unit (SVU)
MISSION STATEMENT
SVU is a highly specialized
unit comprised of
prosecutors, victim
witness specialists, and
investigators, each
committed to serve the
18th JD’s most vulnerable populations.
H IGHLIGHTS
Cases include:
• SVU initiated approximately 200 felony-level
cases and resolved 300 cases by way of trial or
plea. These numbers do not include juvenile or
county court prosecutions.
• sexual assault on children
• Despite no additional prosecutors, SVU increased
its caseload subject matter to include adult sexual
assaults, including domestic partner sexual
assault, as well as juvenile exploitation, adult
trafficking, and pimping cases.
• SVU deputies, committed to the
multidisciplinary approach to victim based
crimes, serve on a variety of committees and task
forces throughout the community, with our
partner professionals.
• child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury or death
• adult sexual assault including domestic partner sexual
assault
• internet facilitated crimes,including luring and possession of
child pornography
• juvenile exploitation and pimping by adults
• intimate crimes against individuals who are at-risk by virtue
of age, intellectual deficit, or other disability
STAFFING
1 Chief Deputy District Attorney, 1 Senior Deputy District
Attorney, 5.5 Deputy District Attorneys, 1 half-time Juvenile
Court Deputy District Attorney, 3 victim-witness specialists,
and 1 investigator.
24
STATISTICS
COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES
• Approximately 300 district court cases closed in 2013 by
trial or disposition, including probation revocations
(excluding juvenile or county court cases).
Successful prosecution and commitment to victims of SVUrelated crimes requires a multidisciplinary approach. SVU
prosecutors and specialists participate in a range of multiagency task forces and committees with law enforcement and
other partner professionals. This level and breadth of
participation is unprecedented in the 18th JD:
• 170 new district court cases were filed in Arapahoe and
Douglas County in 2013 (excluding juvenile and county
court cases).
• SVU deputies trained and advised law enforcement and filed
50 internet-based cases. Although consistent with the
number of cases filed in 2012, the qualitative aspect of these
investigations has increased significantly. There has been a
marked upswing in terms of aggravated internet-based
crimes: 50% more luring cases involve actual child victims
(as opposed to role-playing law enforcement officers) than
in previous years. For example, in one week in March 2013,
our unit facilitated 3 arrests for internet luring, including a
magistrate, a military officer, and a previously convicted sex
offender. Similarly, the crimes involving possession of child
pornography are yielding cases with over thousands of
images as opposed to a handful of images that we saw in
previous years.
• SVU also doubled the number of pimping-based cases,
including adult and child pimping, to a total of 21 felony
cases filed.
SVU Chief Deputy:
• Appointed by Governor Hickenlooper to the Statewide Child
Fatality Review Team, to review all child deaths in the state
and make prevention recommendations
• Appointed to the Colorado Commission on Criminal and
Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) to review sentencing of sex
offenders
• Chairs a SVU task force through the Colorado District
Attorneys Council (CDAC) to review and develop best
practices and common issues in SVU prosecution
throughout the state
SVU prosecutors (beginning in 2013):
• Attend forensic interviews and participate in the interview
process for children who are sexually or physically
assaulted. This is their first involvement with law
enforcement to disclose the abuse in a special forensic
interview.
25
• Work with The Kempe Center on cases involving children
and infants suffering from serious bodily injury. The
medical staff, social workers and SVU collaborate in order to
ensure the investigation is complete.
• Participate in weekly Multi Disciplinary Team review at
DHS on all cases of alleged child abuse and neglect
• Participate in the Statewide Innocence Lost Taskforce
(dealing with juvenile exploitation), as well as the Arapahoe
Human Trafficking taskforce
• Participate in regular meeting with the Sex Offender
Probation Unit
• Prepare and conduct multiple presentations at area schools
on topics, such as internet safety and abuse prevention
programs
SIGNIFICANT TRIALS
SVU deputies and specialists work to obtain justice for victims
and the community through numerous prosecution tools,
including conducting numerous jury trials.
SVU trials are characteristically difficult, typically last one
week, and involve expert witnesses.
In 2013, SVU deputies went to trial in approximately 17 felony
cases. A few are:
People v Cleveland: While on sex offender
probation, the defendant molested a
neighborhood child in unincorporated
Arapahoe and a different boy at a Douglas
County recreation center. The cases were
severed (split). After a week long trial during
which the boy testified for nearly an entire
day, a jury found the defendant guilty. He was
sentenced to 16 years to life in the Department of Corrections.
People v Matthew George: The defendant
used the internet to lure two separate girls to
private locations where he sexually assaulted
them. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to
24 years to life in the Department of
Corrections.
People v Godinez : Omar Ricardo Godinez -a juvenile prosecuted as an adult and one of four codefendants--kidnapped and participated in the brutal gang
rape at gunpoint of two women in separate incidents. The
court sentenced the defendant to 32 years to
life in the Department of Corrections.
People v Koca: The defendant was a
grandfather convicted by a jury of multiple
counts of sex assault on a family member and
was sentenced to 176 years to life in the
Department of Corrections.
People v. Cendejas: A defendant step-father
26
was convicted for repeatedly sexually assaulting his three step
daughters and was sentenced to 120 years to life in the
Department of Corrections.
People v. Raul Alberto Gutierrez-Hernandez: defendant, a
Tae Kwon Do instructor, remains on the run after being
convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault on three girls in
his class.
27
S ECTION 7
Economic Crime Unit
(ECU)
H IGHLIGHTS
• The Economic Crime Unit (ECU) works to
aggressively prosecute complex financial crimes,
including exploitation of the elderly.
• ECU investigates and prosecutes a large range of
crimes including financial elder fraud, public
corruption and embezzlement.
• In addition, ECU oversees fraud prevention
programs, which hold offenders accountable,
while protecting the rights of victims.
• ECU actively participates in the community with
programs and alerts designed to protect anyone
from becoming a victim.
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the 18th
Judicial District’s Economic
Crime Unit (ECU) is to
aggressively prosecute complex
financial, white-collar crimes
to the fullest extent of the law
including exploitation of the
elderly.
STAFFING
One Senior Deputy District
Attorney (Director), one
Deputy District Attorney, a paralegal, two investigators with
financial crimes experience, and a Director of Consumer
Protection. In 2014, an additional Deputy District Attorney
was added to the ECU. All ECU prosecutors have Masters
degrees in either Business Administration or Management
and Organization.
OVERVIEW
ECU investigates and prosecutes complex financial and whitecollar crime with large monetary losses, including:
• Bank, contractor, loan/mortgage, investment, business,
securities and other “white-collar” thefts and frauds
• Violations of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act
(COCCA)
28
• Intricate identity theft, schemes to defraud, and employee
embezzlement
• Consumer Economic Crime Complaint Form via the District
Attorney’s internet website.
• Cases involving thefts of large sums of money (at least
$250,000 – usually much larger amounts)
• Civil forfeitures for the entire office.
• Public corruption
• Unemployment and welfare fraud
• Cases involving multiple jurisdictions, multiple victims, or
multiple defendants
• Financial elder fraud
• Drug trafficking/manufacturing involving identity theft,
check fraud and/or forgeries
• Overall complex crimes
Additionally, ECU provides the
following services:
• Facilitation of both the districtwide and Arapahoe county grand
juries for our own investigations,
as well as assisting other units and
attorneys with the use of such
grand juries.
• Fraud prevention and consumer-related outreach through
our Director of Consumer Protection (Barbara MartinWorley).
As criminals have become more sophisticated, the types and
breadth of economic crimes have exploded. Con artists who
perpetrate identity theft and other financial crimes are
becoming more and more sophisticated. Often economic and
financial crime cases are complex, involving thousands of
documents and requiring an expertise in accounting, internet
technology, mortgage fraud, business practices, securities
transactions, or other specialty areas.
Some recent economic crime investigations have included a
six-figure money laundering and theft operation, large
fraudulent check cashing rings, identity theft investigations
involving multiple victims, misappropriation of monies from
employers, and criminal conduct by home improvement
contractors. Crimes are often personal in nature, oftentimes
invoking a tremendous break of trust between defendants
who most often know their victims. Using fraud prevention
programs, collaborative investigations, and aggressive
prosecution, ECU holds offenders accountable, while
protecting the rights of victims.
Additional focus has recently been placed on some of the most
vulnerable victims in our community. As society ages, the
problem of crimes against older members has increased.
Criminals often take advantage of older citizens who may not
be aware of some of the latest scams. On occasion, these
29
citizens are vulnerable and physically abused by family
members or other caregivers. ECU investigates allegations of
elder abuse as well as cases involving theft and other frauds
committed against older citizens.
The typical ECU prosecution involves theft in excess of
$250,000, some in excess of $1,000,000.
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Additionally, ECU oversees a full-time Director of Consumer
Protection, a position which was split for the year 2013
between John Skoglund (January – June) and Barbara
Martin-Worley (June – present). This position oversees a
comprehensive program which educates consumers about
scams and schemes operating within our jurisdiction and the
entire metro area. Additionally, this position assists those
who have fallen victim to a fraudulent event. The consumer
protection program has four basic elements:
• Crime Prevention Seminars
• Consumer Alerts
• Monitoring of the Consumer Protection Line
• Working with various media outlets to provide consumer
protection information on a mass scale
On a daily basis, the Director of Consumer Protection
conducts prevention seminars, consumer alerts, work with
individuals who called in via the consumer protection line,
and other varying aspects of the position. Numbers for the
year 2013 include:
• An estimated 700+ calls for assistance (312 in second-half of
year alone)
• 50+ community presentations (31 presentations, with 747
attending second half of year alone)
• Organized yearly “Fraud Prevention and Safety
Summit” (large scale event primarily hosted by the District
Attorney’s Office)
• Numerous fraud alerts and media outreach, including a
Channel 7 interview involving bogus charity websites
following the shootings at Arapahoe High School
CASE FILING PHILOSOPHY
ECU does the filing of charges and intake for all of their cases.
Attorneys work with law enforcement from the ground-floor
of the investigation. Unlike other units within the office, ECU
is primarily document driven, resulting in several thousands
of pages of discovery for any given case. While it is important
to file cases, ECU recognizes the importance of not hastily
filing cases, focusing on those cases which we can prove
beyond a reasonable doubt from the point of filing. This
results in a tremendous amount of work pre-filing. A
common saying in ECU is the real work is done before the
case is ever filed. Additionally, ECU cases often come by way
of grand jury indictment rather than complaint and
30
information filing. The result is a more select acceptance of
worked-up case filings, with strong provability and aggressive
prosecution for the cases filed.
NOTABLE ECU CASES
People v. Zachary Davidson (Arapahoe): The defendant
allegedly embezzled over $3 million of public funds
(metropolitan district bond money) via the Landmark highrise development (I-25/Belleview). In December 2012, a
year-long Grand Jury investigation resulted in an indictment.
This case involved 20 felony counts, including Theft
$20,000+ (F3), Embezzlement (F5), Forgery (F5). The case
ended in January 2013 when the defendant died.
People v. Julie Barnes (Arapahoe): The
defendant stole $3.2 million from her
employer (WellDyne, Inc.) over a decade
time period. This case involved Theft
(F3) and numerous other felony counts.
The defendant pled to the highest count
and was sentenced to 15 years in the
Department of Corrections and payment
of restitution.
People v. Kathleen White (Arapahoe) and People v. Osvaldo
Ponce (Arapahoe): This was a large scale ECU investigation
involving mortgage fraud. Charges were filed against both
defendants on 30+ counts involving theft and forgery related
to the illegal sale of four houses. This case involved Theft (F3)
over $15,000, Forgery (F5).
People v. Steven Thompson (Douglas):
The defendant used$213,518 in stolen
monies related to illegal business/
property deals. This case involved Theft
(F3) over $20,000, Forgery (F5). He was
found guilty at trial to all counts, and
sentenced to 10 years ECU probation
with 90 days jail.
People v. Lawrence Livingston (Douglas):
This was a securities fraud/theft scheme in which the
defendant stole more than $1.3 million from investors. His
wife was charged with Theft Receiving (F3) for receiving more
than $350K.
ECU GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS
All defendants are presumed innocent of the charges against
them until such time as they may be convicted in court. An
indictment is merely an accusation of criminal conduct.
People v. Lowell Andrews (Arapahoe): The defendant was
indicted on felony counts of Theft (F3) and Securities Fraud
(F3) for fraudulent auto title scam D.B.A. “Auto Hut Motors.”
There are 41 victims and more than 20 vehicles involved in
this case.
People v. Marco Smith (Arapahoe): The defendant was
indicted on 10 felony counts, including Theft (F3) and Motor
Vehicle Theft (F3) for fraud and a scheme involving sale/
swapping of vehicle over internet.
31
People v. Bruce Robertson (Arapahoe): The defendant was
indicted on five felony counts of Theft (F5)/(F6) for a scheme
involving contract fraud and sales/installment of airport kiosk
businesses.
• CA District Attorneys Association – National Elder Abuse
Symposium, Anaheim, CA (one ECU attorney, one ECU
investigator, and the Director of Consumer Protection
attended this week-long training)
CIVIL FORFEITURES
Additionally, the Director of ECU has conducted several
trainings related to forfeitures to local law enforcement.
Likewise, the unit has met with nearly all members of law
enforcement who investigate financial crime throughout our
jurisdiction, as well as the 18th Judicial Probation
Department’s Economic Crime Unit.
ECU handles all forfeitures within the 18th JD. In 2013, the
ECU was successful in realizing over $20,000 in forfeitures
submitted by local law enforcement. Another four pending
vehicle sales will increase this number. While a 2011 change
in the state forfeiture law has dampened submission of
forfeitures over the past few years, the ECU has worked to
develop reasonable goals towards increasing forfeitures under
the current administration. The hope is to double, and
perhaps triple, the amount of forfeitures realized in the next
few years through a comprehensive approach of educating law
enforcement about forfeitures.
MEMBERSHIPS & COMMITTEES
• Forfeiture board member (DA’s Office)
• DA representative for all other law enforcement forfeiture
boards (Englewood, Glendale, Littleton, ACSO, DCSO, etc.)
TRAININGS
• Securities Fraud Working Group member (facilitated by
FINRA and SEC)
Attorneys and investigators within ECU have attended the
following trainings:
• Colorado Organized Retail Crime Alliance
• National White Collar Crime Center training on Financial
Investigations Practical Skills (all ECU attorneys have
attended this 4 ½ day training)
• National White Collar Crime Center training on prosecution
of Mortgage and Vacant Property Fraud (all ECU attorneys
and one investigator have attended this one-day training)
32
S ECTION 8
Cold Case Unit
“The dead cannot cry out for justice, it is the duty of the living
to do so for them.”
--Lois McMaster Bujold
MISSION STATEMENT
H IGHLIGHTS
• The Cold Case Unit (CCU) was formed in 2013 by
newly-elected District Attorney George
Brauchler.
• Cases that are over three-years-old are
considered “cold cases” and none of them are
deemed unsolvable.
• Since the creation of the CCU, 39 cold cases have
been reviewed, seven cases are currently under
prosecution, and three cases have been
successfully prosecuted.
• The CCU works closely with law enforcement
agencies throughout their review process.
The mission of the 18th
Judicial District Cold Case
Unit is to partner with law
enforcement agencies and
forensic laboratories to
systematically review, solve
and prosecute violent
crimes that are over three
years old.
We give a voice to those
who cannot speak for themselves and endeavor to bring
closure to survivors of violent crimes.
STAFFING
The CCU consists of the Assistant District Attorney, one
Deputy District Attorney, one part time Victim/Witness
Specialist and one part time Investigator.
COLD CASE UNIT BY THE NUMBERS
In the 18th JD, there are over 200 cold case homicides. In
2013, in an effort to bring justice to those to whom it has been
33
denied for so long, District Attorney George Brauchler formed
the Eighteenth Judicial District Cold Case Unit (CCU).
The CCU is actively working with law enforcement on an
additional twenty cases.
Over the past eighteen months, CCU has reviewed 39 cold
cases. In every single case reviewed we have identified leads
and directed further investigation to actively move the case
towards prosecution.
REVIEW PROCESS
CCU is currently prosecuting seven violent crimes. Five are
murder cases, one is an attempted murder case and one is an
accessory to murder case.
CCU identifies, reviews, solves, and successfully prosecutes
offenders of violent crimes where the case is three years old or
the investigation has stalled or been discontinued.
With the passage of HB 13-1020 last year, the Cold Case Unit’s
mission expanded to assist with the prosecution of unsolved
sexual assault cases as well.
It is the driving force of the CCU that the unlawful taking of
human life should not go unresolved just because of the
passage of time.
CCU continues to review cases for filing of charges and
currently has an additional twenty cases where leads have
been identified or forensic evidence is being tested.
CCU relies on advances in technology to solve cases as old as
thirty years old.
No cold case within the 18th JD is considered closed or
unsolvable. However, when prioritizing limited resources, the
Cold Case Unit employs a preliminary screening process for
identifying cases to review.
• The attorneys and investigator of CCU go to each police
agency and explain to them the mission of our unit and the
support we can provide. We solicit from each agency cases
which they believe are suitable for review. If the case file
comes in paper format we scan everything into a PDF which
can be shared among the CCU for review. Each reviewer
makes notes in the PDF for others to view. In many cases,
due to the passage of time the file is completely disorganized
or is missing reports. These case files typically consist of
several thousand pages. We organize the file and seek any
missing information to fill in the gaps.
• Physically review any evidence. After initial case file review,
CCU will often inspect the physical evidence and determine
what, if anything, can be examined or reexamined.
Oftentimes this step takes place with an analyst from the
CBI.
• Meet with the Coroner to discuss suspicious or unexplained
circumstances of death.
34
• One of the last steps is to re-interview key witnesses. Time
can be a benefit to a case that has gone cold. A witness who
feels threatened at the time of the crime may no longer feel
threatened and agree to talk with law enforcement. Or a
witness who had some type of allegiance to the suspect may
no longer have the same relationship.
CASE STUDIES
People v. James Fennell: In 2010, Juan
Miranda-Hernandez was found
murdered in his apartment in Aurora.
Miranda-Hernandez was apparently
beaten with a pistol, robbed, and shot
once in the back as he tried to flee.
The investigation led to James Fennell,
who was being held in jail on an
unrelated attempted murder case. The
gun used in the unrelated case was
examined by analysts at CBI. A single hair was found in the
rear sight of the pistol. DNA analysis conclusively proved the
hair belonged to Juan Miranda-Hernandez, and likely was
embedded in the rear sight when he was beaten on the head
during the robbery.
The Cold Case Unit sought assistance from the FBI to analyze
cell phone records belonging to Fennell and other witnesses,
which ultimately placed Fennell in the vicinity of the victim’s
apartment at the time of the murder. First degree murder
charges were filed against Fennell and he was convicted of
First Degree Murder in August -- making this the first Cold
Case Unit case to go to trial and and the first case to receive a
conviction.
People v. Hosea Brown: People v. Hosea Brown: A young
woman began pounding on a neighbor’s door in the middle of
the night in February, 1996. The young woman appeared
disheveled and beaten and reported she had been kidnapped
and raped. A sexual assault examination was conducted but
no DNA was recovered using standard methods in 1996. As
part of an initiative to reanalyze sexual assault kits with
modern techniques, the kit was analyzed again in 2013 and a
suspect DNA profile was developed. This profile was
uploaded into CODIS, the national DNA database, and
resulted in a hit to Hosea Brown. He was subsequently
interviewed and arrested. Just before trial was set to begin,
the defendant pled guilty to a lesser count and was sentenced
to the Department of Corrections.
People v. Sonny Torres: In 2007, a man awoke in his Aurora
home to someone standing over him with a knife, demanding
money. The victim gave the intruder everything from his
wallet. The intruder then grabbed the victim by the head and
cut his throat from ear to ear. Miraculously, the victim did
not die and instead fought the intruder and wrestled the knife
away. The intruder fled, but not before being cut by his own
knife, leaving a trail of blood behind. Using modern DNA
analysis, a profile was developed from the suspect’s brother,
which enabled us to seek an arrest warrant of the suspect in
California. Torres was extradited to Colorado and is currently
35
in the Arapahoe County jail pending trial on attempted first
degree murder, aggravated robbery, burglary, and other
charges. The trial is scheduled to begin in January of 2015.
People v. Jon Harrington: In 2003, a man helped his friend
Jon Harrington move from Harrington’s apartment to the
man’s house. Among the items moved was a large, white
Rubbermaid container. Two years later the man was moving
the Rubbermaid container when it broke open exposing a
foot. Police were called and it was revealed that Harrington’s
former roommate, Carolyn Jansen, was in the container. It
was not until new DNA evidence, combined with information
learned in the previous investigation, led to second degree
murder charges against Harrington. At the preliminary
hearing the judge found probable cause and bound over the
case for trial. The defendant is scheduled to be arraigned on
the murder charge in September of 2014.
Grand Jury in June, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the Grand Jury
returned indictments against four defendants for First Degree
Murder and Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder. A
fifth defendant was charged as an accessory to the crimes. All
defendants have pending hearings and are currently incustody.
People v. Devon Grant-Washington, Brandon Jackson,
Urocca Guyton, Amin El-Howeris, Bruce Roberts: On
December 26, 2011, at about 3 a.m., Youn Malual was shot
and killed in the parking lot outside his apartment building.
Mr. Malual had just returned from work and was going to his
apartment to see his wife and five children. He was killed at
the 1100 block of South Xenia Street, in Unincorporated
Arapahoe County. It was later learned that Mr. Malual was
mistaken for an intended victim who lived in the same
apartment complex. After a thorough investigation by the
Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office and the 18th JD Attorney’s
Office, a case was presented to the 18th Judicial District
36
S ECTION 9
Appeals Unit
H IGHLIGHTS
• Our appeals unit consistently prosecutes more
appeals in the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals than any other district attorney’s office
along the front range. In 2013, our appellate
attorneys filed 19 substantive petitions and briefs
in those counts, and conducted 3 oral arguments.
• The appeals unit does more than appeals: The
unit also handles Colorado Open Records Act
requests, research, sealing of records and more.
MISSION
The Appeals Unit is the
office’s center for legal
research and writing,
analysis, and advice, as
well as answering the novel
or complicated legal
questions we routinely
encounter. The Appeals
Unit plays a crucial role in
accomplishing our overall
mission, by assisting our
prosecutors with legal issues before trial, during trial, and
after trial, as well as handling important appeals that shape
Colorado law for future cases.
STAFFING
One Chief Deputy District Attorney, two Senior Deputy
District Attorneys, a Deputy District Attorney, a paralegal,
and two law student interns.
Here is some of what our appellate lawyers do:
Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals: All
prosecution-initiated appeals in the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals are handled by our appeals unit. In many of
those cases, a judge has suppressed important evidence or
dismissed criminal charges. Our expert appellate attorneys
look not only to correct the erroneous ruling, but also to
37
clarify the law through published opinions of the Supreme
Court and Court of Appeals.
County Court Appeals: All appeals in misdemeanor cases—
whether initiated by the prosecution or by the defense—are
handled by our appeals unit. The fact patterns in many of our
misdemeanor cases, especially those involving drunk driving,
are often similar. Our appellate attorneys help ensure that the
legal requirements imposed on police officers investigating
such crimes are applied in a consistent manner by the courts.
Motor Vehicle Appeals: Drunk drivers can ask for an
administrative proceeding before the Division of Motor
Vehicles, seeking to have their driver’s licenses reinstated.
When they lose in that proceeding they can appeal to the
district court. In those appeals, our appellate team represents
the Division of Motor Vehicles and helps ensure that the
license revocation order is upheld on appeal—keeping the
drunk driver off the streets.
Legal Research: Attorneys from throughout our office call
upon the appeals unit to conduct legal research. This includes
preparing prosecution motions, responding to defense
motions, and providing quick answers to urgent questions
that arise in the heat of trial. Our appellate attorneys also
directly advise the District Attorney on a broad range of issues
that pertain to the office’s legal responsibilities.
Public Records Requests: Although Colorado’s open records
laws allow the public to have ready access to many types of
official information, those laws also recognize that criminal
justice records present special concerns. Where criminal
charges are still pending, releasing too much information can
harm the defendant’s rights and undermine our ability to
successfully prosecute the case. Our appellate attorneys
review requests for such information to ensure that our
responses are appropriate and legally correct.
Sex Offender De-Registration Hearings: By statute, some
registered sex offenders can petition the court to be removed
from the sex offender registry. Our appellate attorneys
respond to those petitions and appear in court to represent
the public’s interest in maintaining community safety.
Sealing of Records: In Colorado, some criminal defendants
can petition to have their records sealed from public view.
Our appeals paralegal researches the records to assess
whether the records are statutorily eligible to be sealed. Our
appellate attorneys respond to the petitions and appear in
court if we believe the records should remain open.
Inter-Jurisdictional Issues: The appeals department handles
out-of-state witness petitions (to subpoena trial witnesses
who have left Colorado), interstate extradition matters (to
bring defendants arrested in other states back to Colorado to
face charges), interstate detainer cases (to bring defendants
back to Colorado to face charges, if they are in another state’s
prison or in federal prison), and other matters that require
cooperation with our governor’s office, the governments of
other states, and the federal government.
38
General Counsel Duties: Our appellate attorneys provide legal
advice to the District Attorney and others in our office
concerning insurance coverage, vendor contracts, evidence
retention, statutory reporting requirements, employment
matters, and a broad range of other topics. Our appeals unit
also manages the civil lawsuits that occasionally are filed
against our office by disgruntled criminal defendants. Some
district attorney’s offices turn to their county attorneys for
such legal services, but here these duties are efficiently
performed in house, by our appeals unit.
STATISTICS
“Impact” Cases: In 2013 our appeals unit filed two cases in
the Supreme Court that could have a particularly important
impact. In People v. Roberson, we argued that a convicted sex
offender who refuses to discuss his behavior in a therapeutic
treatment program can have his probation revoked, even if he
has invoked the privilege against self-incrimination. In
People v. Schaufele, we argued for the adoption of a
straightforward rule saying when police officers can direct an
involuntary, warrantless blood draw of a drunk-driving
suspect—to obtain evidence of the suspect’s dissipating bloodalcohol content—in cases of vehicular assault and vehicular
homicide. The Roberson and Schaufele cases will provide
much-needed guidance to police officers and judges on
constitutional questions of great importance to community
safety.
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals: Our appeals unit
consistently prosecutes more appeals in the Supreme Court
and Court of Appeals than any other district attorney’s office
along the front range. In 2013, our appellate attorneys filed
19 substantive petitions and briefs in those counts, and
conducted 3 oral arguments. Each of those petitions and
briefs are exhaustively researched, carefully grounded in the
record, and persuasively written: they can take more than a
week—working full time—to write. The oral arguments
likewise require many hours of preparation. Because the
decisions of our appellate courts create law that control cases
throughout the state, our attorneys’ work on these matters is
of crucial importance.
District Court Appeals: Appeals from county court rulings,
and appeals of driver’s license revocation proceedings, are
litigated in our district courts. Our appellate team carefully
crafts the briefs for these appeals, many of which address the
law surrounding drunk driving offenses and domestic violence
crimes. The district court judges who review these appeals
also preside, as trial judges, over our felony cases—there is
great value in having them recognize and respect the skills
and talents of our appellate attorneys. In 2013, our appeals
team filed 62 full-length briefs in our district courts.
Other Statistics: Here are the numbers on some of the other
duties handled by our appeals unit in 2013. Extraditions:
248 decisions, 12 governor’s warrants, and 6 proceedings
under the interstate agreement on detainers. Petitions To
Seal Criminal Justice Records: 283 responses filed. Out-of39
State Witness Petitions: 52 originating from our office, 7
incoming requests from other states. Sex Offender
Registration Petitions: 28 petitions or pre-petitions.
Criminal Justice Records Requests: 57 requests processed.
• People v. Westcott, 12CA1441 (reply brief)
In 2013, there were 32 license revocation appeals filed and 49
county to district court appeals. In the Colorado Court of
Appeals and Colorado Supreme Court the following cases
were actively briefed in 2013:
• People v. Bueno, 10CA2114 (reply brief)
• People v. Wilburn, 11CA1942 (reply brief)
• People v. Larkins, 11CA1029 (reply brief & oral argument)
Petitions for Certiorari:
• People v. Wilburn, 13SC895 (petition)
• People v. Hay, 13SC373 (petition)
• People v. Todoroki, 13SC689 (petition and reply brief)
• People v. Westcott, 13SC504 (opposition brief)
Interlocutory:
• People v. Schaufele, 13SA276 (opening and reply briefs)
• People v. Zadran, 13SA194 (opening and reply briefs)
Rule 21:
• People v. Roberson, 13SA268 (opening and reply briefs)
Court of Appeals:
• People v. Martinez, 13CA967 (opening brief)
• People v. Bayer, 13CA902 (opening brief)
• People v. Nava-Hernandez, 13CA571 (opening brief)
40
S ECTION 10
Victim Witness Unit
H IGHLIGHTS
• We successfully recruited one of the heads of the
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice to take
over our Victim Witness Unit as its Director.
• The director supervises 32 staff members.
• The unit successfully obtained more than
$186,000 in grant-funding to enhance the
performance of its mission.
• The staffing in the unit complies with the Victim
Rights Act as outlined in Colorado Statute
(24.1.1.301-302).
MISSION STATEMENT
The Victim Witness
Unit exists to support
victims and witnesses
throughout the criminal
justice process. The
VW Unit strives to
ensure that victims of
violent crimes are
afforded their rights as
outlined in the Victim
Rights Act. In addition, the VW Unit acts as a liaison for
victims and witnesses to the attorneys handling their cases,
including the provision of information regarding the court
process, assistance with various resources including victim
compensation, support during court hearings, and the
coordination of victims and witnesses for trial.
2013 was a year of transition for all of the Victim Witness
staff. A major accomplishment for the entire group was the
conversion from the critical computer system, called
REACTION, back to the computer system maintained by the
Colorado District Attorneys Association (CDAC), called
ACTION. These systems, in part, provide notification letters
to victims, as well as processing subpoenas on all cases.
41
STAFFING
One Director, 25 VW Specialists, and 7 support staff.
The following is a brief overview of some of the work done
within the unit:
• The victim witness specialists assisted in prepping for and
coordinating witnesses for 290 trials (115 Felony, 150
County, and 25 Juvenile); Twelve of the felony trials were
completed by the Special Victims Unit (SVU) specialists.
• 42,564 Subpoenas were printed and mailed for all 4 counties
to law enforcement and lay witnesses;
• As part of the office’s compliance with the Victim Rights
Act- 28,347* critical event letters were sent out to victims.
This included the initial filing letter and victim impact
statement, as well as notifications of upcoming court
hearings. (*This number does not include any notifications
sent out as part of the Aurora Theatre Shooting case);
• The Fast Track Programs in Arapahoe and Douglas county
assisted a total of 871 misdemeanor domestic violence
victims (490 Arapahoe and 381 in Douglas);
These numbers are a small snap shot of the work completed
by the Victim Witness staff during 2013. There were
numerous trials that were prepared that did not go to trial,
but time and effort was spent preparing the victims and
witnesses.
The unit also handled the HIV testing required on sexual
assault cases and the initial processing of any U-Visa requests.
The VW Unit also continued their ongoing training by
attending the Ending Violence Against Women International’s
regional training or the COVA conference.
VW GRANTS
The VW Unit is able to enhance its ability to perform its
mission and provide greater services to the community and
those they serve through the successful application for grant
funding. These funds are in addition to funds provided
through the Office’s operating budget. Below is a list of
current grant funding for the VW Unit.
• The three volunteers in the Arapahoe County Fast Track
program volunteered 407 hours; and
• Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) – Office for Victims
Programs – VOCA Grant provides $79,574 (annually for two
years) to help pay a portion of the salaries for Fast Track, an
SVU advocate, and a felony DV advocate. The Office has
reapplied for this grant for 2015 and 2016.
• The Victim Witness Waiting room in the Arapahoe County
courthouse had 6250 victims and witnesses check in for
various court hearings during the year.
• VALE (Victims and Witnesses Assistance and Law
Enforcement) Grant #1 provides $39,110 to pay a portion of
the Fast Track Salaries. This funding is for the grant period
42
from July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015. The funding received is
an 18 percent decrease due to lack of VALE funds available.
• VALE Grant #2 provides $21,000 to pay a portion of the
salary for the Notification Assistant in the Victim Witness
Center at the Courthouse. This funding is for the grant
period July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015. The funding received is
a 16 percent decrease from previous funding due to a lack of
VALE funds available.
• Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) – Office for Victims
Programs – SART (Sexual Assault Response Team) Grant
provides $34,128 to pay the salary, operating and travel
expenses for the SART Coordinator. DCJ may extend the
grant 2 more years at its discretion.
43
S ECTION 11
Victim Compensation/
VALE
H IGHLIGHTS
1. The three staff member unit has not increased
in employees in 20 years.
2. The claims workload has doubled over the past
20 years, including a 60% increase in just the
past five years.
3. In 2013, the 18th JD Victim Compensation
Board administered more claims and
distributed more money to victims than 17
other states in the U.S.
MISSION STATEMENT
Victim Compensation
(VC)’s mission is to
provide financial
assistance for crimerelated compensable
expenses. It is a program
mandated by the Crime
Victim Compensation Act
at C.R.S. 24-4.1-101.
VALE’s mission is to fund agencies who serve crime victims in
the 18th Judicial District, through a grant process. It is a
program mandated by the Victims and Witnesses Assistance
and Law Enforcement (VALE) Act C.R.S. 24-4.1-102.
Funding for VC and VALE grants is generated from
surcharges assessed by the courts against defendants at the
time they are sentenced. The assessed amounts are $163.00
for felonies and $78.00 misdemeanors.
STAFF
4 Staff Members; 8 volunteer Board Members.
GRANT
VC/VALE was able to fulfill its mission for 2013 with the
addition of staff member funded through the Antiterrorism
and Emergency Assistance Program (AEAP) grant. The
44
grant is a 3 year, one-time only, grant. The grant period
expires July, 2015.
STATISTICS
VALE: The Board awarded over $2 million in grant funds to
40+ victim service agencies in the 18th Judicial District.
VC: The Board awarded over $2.1 million on behalf of victims
in the 18th Judicial District. Our staff of 4 has administered
claims and distributed more money than the entire states
(staff sizes in parentheses) of: Alabama (26), Alaska (3),
Arizona (27), Hawaii (8), Idaho (11), Kentucky (10), Louisiana
(3.5), Maine (3), Montana (6), Nebraska (7), New Hampshire
(2), North Dakota (1), Rhode Island (4.5), South Dakota (4),
Vermont (4), West Virginia (6), and Wyoming (3.5).
FUTURE OF VC/VALE DEPARTMENT
Continued increase in claims, ongoing outreach initiatives and
increased payments are anticipated for Victim Compensation.
We are continually evaluating work flow and productivity to
fully maximize staff resources. With the exception of the
grant-funded position, the unit has not had a staff increase in
more than 20 years, while the claim load has doubled. The
unit aims to retain the grant-funded position, to ensure that it
is able to continue to meet the needs of crime victims in the
18th JD.
Within the last 5 years, we have experienced a 60% increase in
new claims received and a significant increase in payments
issued. Some increase is attributable to general awareness
and outreach to crime victims. Some is attributable to the
Century 16 shooting (536 claims to date) and some the
Arapahoe High School Shooting (404 claims to date). We are
on trend for another sizable increase in 2014. As of 2/18/14,
we have received 470 new applications for the year. That
figure represents 30% percent of the total applications
received for 2013.
45
S ECTION 12
Problem Solving Courts
H IGHLIGHTS
• 18th Judicial District has three Problem Solving
Courts.
• The Wellness Court works with defendants who
have a diagnosed mental health condition.
Fourteen participants have successfully
completed the program since inception.
• The Recovery Court focuses on defendants in the
criminal justice system with substance
dependence issues. Four participants have
successfully completed the program.
• The Veterans Treatment Court is a hybrid adult
drug court and mental health court for
defendants who are veterans struggling with
trauma-related issues impacting their behavior.
OVERVIEW
Problem Solving Courts
seek to provide
accountability, promote
public safety, and reduce
recidivism. The courts are
a collaborative effort
between the prosecution,
defense, courts, probation, treatment providers, and law
enforcement. Each court uses evidence-based treatment and
best practices to supervise high risk offenders following the
ten key components developed by the National Drug Court
Institute.
This non-adversarial approach to crime was first established
in Florida in 1989. Current research shows that problem
solving courts are an effective, cost saving way to reduce
substance abuse, manage mental illness, and increase the
likelihood that participants will remain in recovery and
reintegrate into the community as contributing members (The
Verdict on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts,
Chapman Journal of Scientific Justice, Douglas B. Marlowe,
February 22, 2011; Colorado Problem Solving Courts Best
Practices manual, October 2010).
It takes a minimum of 18 months to complete each of the
programs, but a more realistic timeframe is 2+ years.
46
Wellness Court
The 18th Judicial District first established a mental health
court in February 2010.
To be eligible, applicants must be charged with a felony and
must have an Axis I mental health diagnosis (sex offenders are
not eligible). Participants in Wellness Court (WC) must
advance through five phases before successfully graduating
from the program. Each phase has a number of requirements,
allowing offenders more autonomy as they work through the
program. As of December 2013, there were 45 WC
participants and 14 successful graduates.
A prosecutor is an active member on the WC team. The
prosecutor is responsible for participating in new applicant
screenings as well as weekly staffings of current participants.
After an offender is accepted by the team, the WC prosecutor
is responsible for extending an appropriate plea offer, and
working with the assigned prosecutor to effectuate the plea
agreement in court. Once an offender has pled into WC, the
prosecutor’s role is to work with the WC team to determine
appropriate treatment modalities and appropriate incentives
and sanctions for participants.
The assigned prosecutor attends weekly court on Thursday
afternoons and all graduations. The prosecutor also attends
training at least annually with the WC team.
Currently a chief deputy district attorney attends these
meetings and oversees the WC processes.
Recovery Court
This jurisdiction established the Recovery Court (RC) in
November 2011 to address criminal offenders with substance
dependence.
To be eligible, applicants must be facing felony probation
revocation (sex offenders are not eligible). RC participants
must advance through four phases before successfully
graduating from the program. Each phase has a number of
requirements, allowing offenders more autonomy as they
work through the program.
As of December 2013, there were 26 participants and 4
graduates. RC has been at capacity nearly since its inception.
The prosecutor on the RC team is responsible for participating
in new applicant screenings as well as weekly staffings of
current participants. Once accepted to RC, the RC prosecutor
extends a plea offer and the applicant’s case(s) is/are moved
to the RC division. The RC prosecutor completes the plea
agreement in the RC courtroom. Once an offender has pled
into RC, the prosecutor’s role is to work with the RC team to
determine appropriate treatment modalities and appropriate
incentives and sanctions.
A WC steering committee meets quarterly to discuss changes
and updates in order to maintain fidelity to the program.
47
The assigned prosecutor attends weekly court on Friday
afternoons and all graduations. The prosecutor also attends
training with the RC team at least annually.
Veterans Treatment Court
The Veterans Treatment Court (VTC) was established in
March 2013 for offenders who are veterans struggling with
service trauma-related issues.
To be eligible, applicants must have served in the armed
forces and have a service-related Axis I diagnosis. The VTC
focuses on offenders with PTSD or TBI related to their service,
but includes other mental health diagnoses. Preference is
given to applicants with felony offenses, but applicants with
misdemeanor offenses may apply (sex offenders are not
eligible).
the applicant does not successfully complete VTC. Once an
offender has pled guilty, the prosecutor’s role is to work with
the VTC team to determine appropriate treatment, incentives,
and sanctions.
Although the Veterans Treatment Court is a new initiative,
peer-reviewed studies have consistently shown that this type
of treatment court model dramatically reduces recidivism and
saves taxpayer’s funds.
The assigned prosecutor attends weekly court on Friday
mornings. The prosecutor attends training with the VTC team
at least annually.
VTC participants must advance through four phases, before
successfully graduating from the program. Each phase has a
number of requirements, allowing offenders more autonomy
as they work through the program. Due to the recent
establishment of the VTC, there are not yet any graduates. As
of August 2014, there were 15 veterans participating in the the
court.
The VTC prosecutor, a Marine Corps Reserve judge advocate
officer, is responsible for participating in new applicant
screenings as well as weekly staffings of current participants.
Once an offender is accepted, the VTC prosecutor determines
appropriate offers on cases to ensure public safety in the event
48
S ECTION 13
Death Penalty Cases
H IGHLIGHTS
• The District Attorney began 2013 as the only
Colorado DA’s office pursuing the death penalty
(4 cases).
• On April 1, 2013, DA George Brauchler decided to
seek a death sentence in the Aurora Theatre
Shooting case (Arapahoe).
• The DA’s Office has sought no additional or
supplemental funds from county commissioners
to prosecute these cases.
• Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC)
reimbursed the prosecution costs incurred in
People v. Edward Montour directly to the four
counties of the 18th JD as mandated by statute.
People v. Nathan Dunlap (Arapahoe)(convicted)
In 1993, Dunlap murdered four innocent
victims and shot a fifth person, who
survived, in the head. This happened at a
Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in Aurora. He
was convicted and sentenced to death by a
unanimous El Paso County jury in 1996.
The US Supreme Court denied the last of
Dunlap's attempts to undo his conviction
and sentence in March 2013.
Dunlap was ordered by the court to be executed the week of
August 18-24, 2013.
Dunlap’s defense attorneys petitioned Governor John
Hickenlooper to intervene and grant clemency--the act of
converting his death sentence to life in prison. Our office
worked vigorously to defend the unanimous jury’s 17 year-old
verdict and sentence.
On May 22, 2013, Governor Hickenlooper exercised the power
of “reprieve” from the Colorado Constitution via Executive
Order D2013-006. The effect of the Executive Order is to
indefinitely suspend the imposition of the death sentence
against Nathan Dunlap until the Executive Order is rescinded
by Governor Hickenlooper or a future governor. There is no
documented use of the reprieve power since 1895.
49
Also on May 22, 2013, District Attorney George Brauchler
responded to Governor Hickenlooper’s Executive Order on
the west steps of the Capitol in Denver.
People v. Sir Mario Owens/People v. Robert Ray
(Arapahoe)(convicted)
On June 20, 2005, Owens murdered
Javad Marshall-Fields and his fiancee,
Vivian Wolfe, at the direction of Ray.
Javad Marshall-Fields was scheduled to
testify against Ray the following week in
a trial related to the July 4, 2004
murder of Greg Vann where MarshallFields had also been shot. Ray wanted
to avoid prison. Owens was at risk of
being identified by Marshall-Fields in
the Greg Vann Murder.
Sir Mario Owens has been convicted of
the 2005 murder of Greg Vann and
sentenced to life in prison. Sir Mario
Owens has also been convicted of the
murders of the 2005 murders of Javad
Marshall-Fields and Vivian Wolfe and
was sentenced to death by a unanimous jury.
For his role in the July 4, 2004 shootings, Ray was convicted
of attempted murder and first degree assault for shooting
Javad Marshall-Fields and a protected witness. Ray was also
convicted of the murders of Javad Marshall-Fields and Vivian
Wolfe, a unanimous jury agreed that death was the
appropriate penalty in 2009.
A previously unused post-conviction legal process for death
penalty cases in Colorado is applicable to the Owens/Ray
cases.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued a stay in the proceedings
to address a legal issue raised by Owens’ and Ray’s defense
attorneys from April, 2013 to August, 2014. The case is
currently scheduled for several months of hearings this fall.
People v. Edward Montour (Lincoln/Douglas)
People v. Edward Montour (Lincoln/Douglas) - On October
18, 2002, while serving a life sentence for the 1997 murder of
his 11 week old daughter, Montour murdered Eric Autobee, a
correctional officer, by repeatedly bashing his skull with a
heavy, industrial-sized, kitchen tool. Montour originally
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death by a Douglas
County District Court Judge in 2003. That sentence was
overturned in 2007, when the Colorado Supreme Court
applied a US Supreme Court ruling that said a death sentence
can only be rendered if factually supported by a unanimous
jury.
In April 2013, a different judge allowed Montour to withdraw
his original 2003 guilty plea. In January 2014, jury selection
began for his new trial. On January 30, 2014, over three
weeks after the trial had started, Montour’s attorneys
untimely filed notice of 13 additional expert witnesses. The
50
Court subsequently denied our motion to strike those
witnesses and denied our request for additional time to find
other experts to investigate the defense experts' claims and to
otherwise respond to their new claims. On March 6, 2014,
Montour pleaded guilty to First Degree Murder and was
immediately sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Theater Shooting Case (Arapahoe) (pending in 2014)
The Defendant is charged with murdering 12 people, in
addition to attempting to murder 70 others, and one count of
possessing an explosive device. The law presumes him
innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. On
April 1, 2013, DA George Brauchler announced that the
prosecution would seek the imposition of a death sentence.
The defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity,
which required the judge to order that the Colorado Mental
Health Institute At Pueblo (CMHIP) evaluate his sanity. The
original report from CMHIP was provided to the court and
attorneys on September 6, 2013. The DA's office filed a
motion for a further examination, which involved substantial
litigation. This procedure, while specified in the statute, has
seldom been used in Colorado. The trial court granted the
DA's motion for further examination, and the report of the
further examination is due in mid-October. The trial is
scheduled to commence on December 8, 2014 with individual
jury selection. The entire trial process is scheduled to take a
number of months.
51
C HAPTER 3
Budget
The Office budget is funded annually based on CRS
Sec. 20-1-302, which states: “Expenses shall be borne
by the various counties in the judicial district, each in
the proportion that the population of such county bears
to the population of the whole judicial district,
according to the last preceding decennial census
population estimate that is prepared before May 1 of
the current year by the Division of Planning in the
Department of Local Affairs.
S ECTION 1
Comparison
H IGHLIGHTS
• The District Attorney’s Office’s budget is 3.62%
less than it was in 2010, while surrounding
counties and law enforcement agencies generally
saw an increase.
• The Office is requesting a 5.08% increase in
funding to make our salaries and benefit package
competitive with other Front Range District
Attorney’s Offices and governmental entities.
• The Office is requesting a 3.52% additional
staffing to cover criminal cases in a new
courtroom and to support a newly created drug
task force.
Overview
The Office budget is funded annually based on Colorado
Revised Statue, Section 20-1-302 which states “expenses shall
be borne by the various counties in the judicial district, each
in the proportion that the population of such county bears to
the population of the whole judicial district, according to the
last preceding decennial census population estimate that is
prepared before May 1 of the current year by the Division of
Planning in the Department of Local Affairs.
Over the past five years, the Office budget has decreased by
3.6% from $19,738,000 in 2010, to $19,023,000 in each of
the last three years. In the same time period, the budgets of
our supporting counties has increased between 2.8% and
26.5% in their general fund and 1% and 13.26% county-wide.
Over the past two years the Office has been diligent in
spending the funds provided and has implemented the
following strategies to stay within our annual budgets:
• Implemented a partially self-insured health insurance plan
and saved $140,000 in 2013 over the prior insurance plan.
• Piggybacked off County or State contracts to reduce costs in
printing, office supplies and copying.
• Implemented a P-Card program that will generate a cash
rebate for 2015.
• Substituted 401K Forfeiture funds for monthly 401K
contributions.
53
• Reallocated and eliminated positions to better situate the
office to meet the case load demands of today and for years
to come.
Salaries
This adjustment is a 8.6 % increase to the total salaries line
item and deemed necessary as office wide salary increases
have not been distributed since 2012.
The office pay scale has also remained largely unchanged, and
without increase, since 2008. Because of this, several
positions have fallen below market rate and are no longer
comparable with surrounding jurisdictions.
Comparison of County-Funded Staffing by Position
Jurisdiction-Funded Position
2010
2014
County Court Deputies
24.85
25.4
Chief District Deputies
11
10
District Court Deputies
27.6
27.35
20
19
5
7
9.9
6
Paralegal
5
8
Senior District Court Deputies
12
14
Legal Secretaries
45.35
41.6
Victim Witness advocates
17.75
17.75
Juvenile Diversion employees
10.5
9
2
4
190.95
189.1
Investigators
IT
Administrative Managers (HR, PIO, CFO)
The office has been cognizant of the economic environment
existing for the past several years and has acted accordingly in
its budget requests and allocations of taxpayer resources. The
office has approximately two fewer jurisdiction-funded FTEs
than it did in 2010.
DA, ADA, Senior Chiefs
Jurisdiction-Funded Total
54
In an effort to minimize the fiscal impact to our jurisdiction
while addressing increasing areas of need in the community,
the office continues to pursue grant-funded positions where
available.
Grant funded
employees
Totals w/ GrantFunded Positions
2010
2014
11.05
18.63
202.00
207.73
Entry Level Prosecutors: Entry-level salaries for
prosecutors in the 18th JD DA’s Office at every level of
prosecution have not kept pace with inflation over the past
decade, as indicated by the table below.
2003
2013:
CUM INFL
2014: ACTUAL
We are requesting an increase of $303,000 to increase the
employer matching percentage of our 401k aligning us with
the marketplace.
Health Insurance
In 2013, the Office changed the health insurance plan
provided to employees to better control costs of the plan. This
cost saving strategy implemented in August of 2013 resulted
in a no-cost increase for 2013 and 2014.
Our participation rate for 2014 increased by 10%, during the
year we added 17 participants at an additional cost of
approximately $275,000 to the office.
County
Percentage
Arapahoe County
8%
Adams County
9%
County Court
48,516
61,424.68
57,000
Boulder County
PERA
District Court
63,600
80,522.09
70,200
Denver County
7.3%
Senior DDA
85,272
107,960.38
90,000
Douglas County
8%
Chief DDA
86,592
109,631.59
103,140
El Paso County
8%
Jefferson County
8%
Larimer County
5-8%
Weld County
9%
Retirement Contributions
The current employer match for the office’s 401K retirement
plan is 6%. The average retirement contribution for other
front range county offices is as follows:
We met with our insurance broker and insurance provider to
discuss 2015 coverages and costs and anticipate a 10% or
55
$259,000 increase. This will be matched by an increase in
employee contributions of $165,000.
2010
Revenue Collection
Revenue
Sharing
(including
Discovery)
Montour
DOC
Total
% share
The District Attorney’s office generates revenues from two
major sources: Fees charged for the reproduction of
discoverable evidence in court cases and State
reimbursements to the four counties for criminal cases
occurring in the Department of Corrections in Limon.
Arapahoe
390,730
-
131,180
521,910
64.01%
Douglas
201,439
-
67,971
269,410
33.00%
Elbert
875
-
5,075
5,951
2.37%
Lincoln
3,785
-
1,274
5,059
0.62%
In the past four years (2010-2013), the Department of
Corrections paid County governments approximately $1M,
while the operating costs were borne within the operating
budget. The Office also generated $2.4M in discovery and
other shared revenues.
2010
Total
610,421
205,500
610,421
100%
Montour
DOC
Total
% share
2011
All of these revenues are distributed back to the counties.
Countywide Budget Comparison 2010-2013
Discovery
Revenue
Montour
DOC
Total
Arapahoe
1,551,247
388,848
152,042
2,092,137
Douglas
799,040
199,200
78,729
1,076,969
Elbert
47,803
16,310
5,956
70,069
Lincoln
14,806
3,655
1,470
19,931
4 Year Total
2,412,895
608,014
238,198
3,259,107
Revenue
Sharing
(including
Discovery)
Arapahoe
398,737
23,645
-
422,382
64.01%
Douglas
205,567
12,190
-
217,757
33.00%
Elbert
14,763
875
-
15,639
2.37%
Lincoln
3,862
229
-
4,091
0.62%
2011 Total
622,929
36,940
659,869
100%
56
2012
Revenue
Sharing
(including
Discovery)
Montour
DOC
Total
% share
Arapahoe
359,598
88,618
11,816
460,033
63.61%
Douglas
187,176
46,127
6,151
239,454
33.11%
Elbert
15,150
3,734
498
19,382
2.68%
Lincoln
3,392
836
111
4,339
0.60%
2012
Total
565,317
139,315
18,576
723,208
100%
Montour
DOC
Total
% share
2013
Revenue
Sharing
(including
Discovery)
Arapahoe
402,181
276,585
9,047
687,813
64.06%
Douglas
204,858
140,883
4,608
350,349
32.63%
Elbert
17,014
11,701
383
29,097
2.71%
Lincoln
3,767
2,591
85
6,442
0.60%
2013
Total
627,820
431,759
14,122
1,073,701
100%
57
C HAPTER 4
Communications &
Community
Outreach
The 18th Judicial District Attorney’s
office has a robust and proactive
communications plan to keep the office
accountable and the public informed of
the case developments in the jurisdiction.
S ECTION 1
Communications &
Community Outreach
MISSION
The 18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office believes in
transparency and being accountable to the public. Elected
Officials are expected to be transparent in our state. A District
Attorney bears a higher burden of accountability to the public,
because our decisions affect the physical liberty and future of
defendants, the well being of our victims and public safety.
OVERVIEW
H IGHLIGHTS
• Accountability and transparency are tenets of the
18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office’s
communications effort.
• Some of the cases that come through the
jurisdiction receives both local and national
media attention.
• Being the largest judicial district in the state,
both internal and external communications are
critical to keeping both staff and the public
informed.
The office’s media and
communications strategy is
designed to achieve an open
dialogue with the press and
public. The communications
efforts involve regularly providing
advisories and statements to news
outlets about major developments
and outcomes in our docket of
cases.
We are subject to legal and ethical
pre-trial publicity obligations which we strictly observe, but
beyond those we are open and readily accessible to media
outlets.
One of the tenets of any office of representative government
funded by taxpayer monies is that its functions and powers
are limited, known, and their exercise is capable of scrutiny by
59
the public. The office must be reasonably accessible to the
public.
Facts & Figures
• Media relations are entirely
managed by the
communications director.
• Over 120 local and national
reporters are on our regular
press list, and the list constantly
grows.
• The media has expressed
interest in over 130 open cases
since January 2014.
• Our office also works with the media to provide information
on news stories that are topical, and not case oriented (e.g.,
vehicular homicides, cold cases, animal cruelty, etc.).
• Acknowledging the deadlines that reporters face on a daily
basis, we aim to respond back as quickly as possible.
• To keep the press informed, we send regular news releases
and a weekly case tracker.
Media Relations
Our office works with all the Denver Metro Area and Eastern
Plains media, including but not limited to:
• Major Denver TV stations: KCNC, KDVR, KMGH, KUSA,
Entravision/Univision
• Print publications: Associated Press, Reuters, Denver Post,
Westword, Aurora Sentinel, Englewood Herald, Lone Tree
News, Parker Chronicle, Limon Leader, Eastern Colorado
News, Greenwood Villager, I-70 Scout, etc.
• Major news radio stations including 850 KOA, 710 KNUS
and Colorado Public Radio.
We also work with the national and international media
regarding cases of interest, including but not limited to:
• CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS News, Investigation
Discovery, UK Daily Mail
Community Outreach
Throughout the year, our office participates in numerous
outreach activities that help inform the public of the functions
of our office, as well as show support for our community.
60
District Attorney’s Citizens Academy
Aurora Youth 4 Success
This free, five-week
academy for citizens of the
18th Judicial District takes
place twice a year. Each
class explores the District
Attorney Office’s role in
different parts of the
criminal justice system. The
Academy gives members of our community an in-depth look
at what happens on a case between the time of arrest and
post-conviction.
In partnership with the
Aurora Police
Department, prosecutors
from our office
participated in
discussing the topics of
law enforcement and
justice with local
students from Aurora Public Schools. Co-founders State
Senator Nancy Todd and her husband Terry Todd organized
nearly 100 students to participate in this activity.
Jeremy Bitner Memorial 5K
Not One More Child
Our office participates in
numerous races to support
causes throughout the
community. One of the races
was the 2014 Jeremy Bitner
Fallen Officer Fund 5K/10K
Run in June. Our
prosecutors wanted to show
support for families affected by the loss of an officer in the
line-of-duty.
Led by the vision of
Arapahoe County
Commissioner Nancy
Sharpe, our office
participates in the
effort to prevent child
abuse and neglect.
Our prosecutors lend their expertise on how the these crimes
are handled in the judicial process.
61