mt:Include module="Global Settings" /> July 2011 Archives: Colorado Criminal Lawyer Blog

July 2011 Archives

July 31, 2011

The Harsh Reality of Colorado's Sex Offender Laws Hit Hard - A Colorado High School Wrestling Coach Receives Life In Prison

| Share

On Monday, July 25, 2011 A Broomfield County Colorado Wrestling Coach was Sentenced to life in prison after a jury trial which ended in convictions of for Sexual Assault On A Child by a Person in a Position in Trust and Sexual Assault on a child - Pattern of Abuse (more than two incidents).

The verdict related to his sexual assault of a 15-year-old high school girl who was manager of his wresting team. Prosecutors presented evidence at trial that Masse had sex with the girl on several occasions and sent as many as 8,900 text messages to the girl - many of them sexually explicit - between December 2008 and February 2009.

Judge Thomas Ensor, the presiding judge over the May 2011 trial - was compelled by Colorado's mandatory life in prison laws - to sentence Masse to 10 years to life with 20 years' mandatory parole for the first charge, and six years with 20 years' parole for a second offense

At the sentencing hearing Judge Ensor said " This is like a Greek tragedy," "You had everything going for you. But you have a fatal flaw. You found the weakest in the herd, separated her out, groomed her, made her comfortable and then ... you were able to complete what you wanted to do."

Travis Masse, the convicted coach, was a well-respected, award-winning high school wrestling coach who led his young athletes to the Class 4A state wrestling championship in 2008-09. The flaw Judge Ensor spoke of was Masse's predilection for exploiting young women.

Travis Masse, after the verdict did THEN take a plea bargain in a second case - to unlawful sexual contact coercing a child involving Masse's texts and request for nude photos from another female high school student. He was sentenced to two years with six years of parole for that offense, to be served concurrent with the other sentences.

H. Michael's Take:

It is impossible to know whether a plea bargain that could have avoided the life sentences imposed on this man prior to his decision to take the case to trial. It is also impossible to know why he believed the jury would possibly believe the young victim was not telling the truth to the jury at the trial. This case may serve as a warning to all who face these charges and who throw caution to the wind and take these charges to trial.

This author will - over the next several weeks - try to learn more of the "back story" of this case as to what - if any - plea bargain may have been offered by the Broomfield County District Attorney's office. If none was offered - it may be more clear why the case was tried to a jury.

Posted by H. Michael Steinberg | | Email This Post

July 27, 2011

Colorado's Laws Regarding Secretly Taping a Conversation

| Share

With all of the attention to the Rupert Murdock scandal - it seemed a good time to publish the law in Colorado regarding the right of a PRIVATE CITIZEN TO SECRETLY TAPE A CONVERSATION.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303: Recording or overhearing a telephone conversation, or any electronic communication, without the consent of a party to the conversation is a felony punishable by a fine of between $1,000 and $100,000 and one year to 18 months in jail. Recording of a communication from a cordless telephone, however, is a misdemeanor. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401.

Using or disclosing information obtained through illegal wiretapping is prohibited if there is reason to know the information was obtained illegally. Anyone who is not "visibly present" during a conversation who overhears or records the conversation without the consent of at least one of the parties commits a felony carrying the same punishment as a telephone interception, as does anyone who discloses the contents of such a conversation. Colo. Rev. Stat § 18-9-304.

News Agrencies

However, nothing in these statutes "shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305.

Posted by H. Michael Steinberg | | Email This Post

July 3, 2011

Federal Prosecutors Punished for NOT Investigating Veracity of Snitch Witnesses

| Share

The Seventh Circuit this week admonished the United States Attorney's office for failing to investigate the truthfullness of a "cooperating witness" in the face of obvious false testimony.

The Seventh Circuit on June 17 decided a drug case that will have application to ALL criminal cases, including white-collar cases.

In the appellate decison of United States v. Freeman, 09-cr-4043, 2011 WL 2417091 (7th Cir., June 17, 2011), the Seventh Circuit granted a new trial on the grounds that the Federal prosecutors presented testimony of a key cooperating witness on the stand who they knew or at least should have known was lying.

The criminal defense lawyer was on target when he sent the prosecutors a letter detailing his concerns after reading the grand jur testimony challenging key aspects of the cooperating witnesses participation in the actual conspiracy charged in the case.

The US Attorney's office did not investigate the challenges made by the defense lawyer who later testified falsely. Unbelievbly the witness was in JAIL when the witness claimed to be participating in the underlying conspiracy.

The Court Said:

"[T]he governing principle is simply that the prosecutor may not knowingly use false testimony. This includes "half-truths" and vague statements that could be true in a limited, literal sense but give a false impression to the jury."

H. Michael's Take

This caas imposes a clear duty on the part of federal prosecutors to investigate plausible allegations that a government witness's expected testimony was false.

"[I]t is obvious that when the government received the letter from [the defendant's] attorney, it knew there were problems with [the witness's] testimony - problems it should have cleared up well before [the witness] was allowed to testify . . . .

[W]hen the government learns that part of its case may be inaccurate, it must investigate. It cannot simply ignore evidence that its witness is lying. Here, the government abdicated its responsibility by failing to investigate . . . .(Citations omitted.)"

Federal prosecutors swollow whole the stories told by "helpful" cooperating witnesses,

These witnesses often tell the prosecutors whatever they want to hear based on what is needed in the target's case.

These witnesses often are the first to "flip." Agreeing to testify immediatley without these are the witnesses whose "stories" should be checked out before deals are made.

Prosecutors too often ignore massive evidence of the obvious lies and inconsistencies in the proferred testimony.

Criminal defense attorneys should ALWAYS disclose - even if it is tactically questionable - mistakes and inconsistencies in the testimony of cooperating witnesses. If they make their record prior to trial - giving the prosecutor an opportunity to invesitgate these allegations -- and there is no good faith investigation that follows up -- they have "protected the record' for appeal should thse lawyers lose the case at trial.

Posted by H. Michael Steinberg | | Email This Post

« June 2011 | Main Index | Archives | August 2011 »