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

October 2011 Archives

October 12, 2011

Minor Domestic Violence Cases Overwhelms Topeka Kansas Courts - They Stop Prosecuting Them!


Overwhelmed by hundreds of "minor" domestic violence cases, nearly half of Shawnee County's misdemeanors are domestic battery cases... the county has said enough.

Domestic abuse prosecutions had increased over the last three years with no additional funding.

Here is where trhe rubber hits the road when it comes to "political correctness."

I have either prosecuted or defended Colorado Domestic Violence cases for over 28 years. Back when they were treated like all other cases - (where law enforcement was allowed to decide which cases needed to be prosecuted and which cases should result in mediation and detoxification ) -- the police and the courts could cope.

Today - in Colorado and across the United States - as a result of powerful feminist influence over state and local legislatures - mandatory arrest policies and no drop policies are clogging the courts with unnecessary prosecutions -- and most often - the "alleged victims" of these cases do NOT WANT government in their and their families' lives.

In the city of Topeka -- which had a misdemeanor domestic battery law - they could no longer afford to prosecute these cases.

So - guess what -- the City Council members rescinded the domestic battery law.

Now the cases are prosecuted soley in the Kansas state courts under state domestic battery laws.

Of course -- the cry of the feminist lobbyists was heard far and wide.

"I absolutely do not understand it," said Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in the Star's report. "It's really outrageous that they're playing with family safety to see who blinks first. People could die while they're waiting to straighten this out."

In these times of budget cuts and limited government resources -- I am hopeful that Colorado governmental agencies will follow Topeka's lead and restore the decision to arrest in these cases to those in the best position to exercise that discretion -- the cop on the beat .. who is - as Dennis Hybert puts it on The Unit -- the man on the ground. H. Michael

October 9, 2011

Why Are Businesses Denied Colorado's Make My Day Protections?


Again -- this year - the Colorado State Legislature defeated along party lines ( demoncrats opposed and republicans supported) a bill that would have provided Make My Day protections to Colorado Businesses.

For the fifth consecutive year - this time under the Bill Number - Senate Bill 77, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Grantham, R-Canon City, - the law - which would have allowed company owners, managers or employees to use deadly force against someone who had entered a business unlawfully and who they believed intended to commit a crime - was defeated 3-2.

Locally owned grocery and convenience stores - owners who take the risks of making evening deposits -- or who are involved in a cash intense bsiness, would have provided additonal self defense protections now enjoyed by private homeowners.

The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police helped to defeat the measure - testifying that the measure was written too broadly and could provide protection for people who use deadly violence to protect something as small as a candy bar rather than to defend themselves.


H. Michael's Take

As a former DA in Douglas and Arapahoe counties -- I remember well the warnings of law enforcement at the time of their opposition to the first version of the Make My Day law. At that time -- the argument was that homeowners could use the law -- to lay a trap for the unwary - committ a killing - and then argue they are entitled to the immunity granted by the Make My Day law. This fear was myth and unreality. These fears never led to fact and the law has been successfully used by those defending their homes for more than a decade.

I believe the same arguments are now being used to keep this new law from passage.

Business owners are entitled to defend themselves - as are homeowners. The young man or girl who hears a burglar breaking into their businesses late at night should not have to guess whether they can use deadly force to protect themselves. They should receive the same protections of the homeowner under the same circumstances.

October 5, 2011

A Recent - 2011 Colorado Case - Points Up the Lack of Analysis in the Sentencing of Colorado's Sex Crimes Cases


An article - written by Monte Whaley - appearing in the Denver Post in August of 2011 entitled - "Sentencing disparities in child-sex-assault cases point to double standard" confronts the insanity of Colorado's Sex Offender Sentencing Laws

The article began with this statement "Women in Colorado convicted of sexually assaulting a child in their care are far less likely to go to prison than men sentenced for the same crime."

The Post did a comprehensive analysis of publicly available sentencing data provided by the Colorado Judicial Branch.

The data demonstrated that "of the 2,128 men convicted of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust from 2006 through 2010, more than 50 percent were sent to prison."

However, "of the 79 women convicted of the same felony offense, 38 percent went to prison. A little more than 39 percent of female defendants in that same period 31were put on intensive supervised probation. Less than 35 percent of men were given the same sentence."

Analysis Focused on male and female teachers, coaches, babysitters and others who are considered to be in a sexual assault on a child and who are in a "position of trust."

With women, the victim is often a young or teen male in her charge, and too often the abuse is seen as less traumatic and almost a badge of honor for the boy, said forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland.

Several studies uncovered by the Post demonstrate that males molested by female caregivers run a huge risk of becoming sex offenders in adulthood... and that women who molest boys are most likely victims of abuse themselves.

Woman-on- boy crimes are not reported at all, due in part to the media.

Prosecutors say they focus on recividism rates:

All things being equal including prior history - prosecutors focus on the likelihood of recidivism.

The Post story referenced a 2005 study shows that females convicted of a sexual offense repeat the same offense only about 1 percent of the time. The recidivism rate for male sex offenders is 13.4 percent.

Larimer County DA Larry Abrahamson points to the criteria that DA's view as important.

"You look at the charges, you look at the level of threat that individual is causing the community and if that person is subjecting the victim to pretty significant trauma. You have to look at all of those factors," Abrahamson said.

The Colorado SOMB ( Sex Offender Management Board ) psycho-sexual evaluation is critical here.

In Colorado - in negotiating this deadly road - the Colorado criminal defense attorney - attempting to defend a clear case of sexual assault on a child - will refer their clients to a State Certified Colorado Sex Offender (SOMB Approved) evaluator. The purpose of this intense and difficult evaluation is to help determine the true "risk" a sex offender presents to the community. The report - generated by this evaluation - have a great bearing on the negotiating process.

"Those responses can determine what kind of punishment level you are seeking," Abrahamson said.

H. Michael's Take

All Colorado criminal defense lawyers who defend these cases are locked into the draconian Colorado sex offender laws passed in the late 1990's.

These laws, opposed by many - if not most - of Colorado District Court judges - take away the right of a judge to utiliize his/her experience and given authority to determine a sentence commensurate with the nature of the crime. These laws lock judges into a "one size fits all" method of pursuing and convicting sex offenders, both men and women.

October 5, 2011

Alleged Colorado Hate Crimes Case at the University of Colorado - Boulder

In a very serious charge of Second Degree Assault - with what is called in Colorado - a Hate Crime Enhancer - A University of Colorado student who complained of the smell of the alleged victim for "eating all those Asian noodles."

The Daily Camera of Boulder Colorado recently reported about a University of Colorado freshman who was arrested on suspicion of second-degree assault and bias-motivated crime after making derogatory remarks about Asian food, and then punching and choking a half-Asian student who objected.

Before getting into the case - here is the Colorado Hate Crimes Law: C.R.S. 18-9-121

18-9-121. Ethnic Intimidation.

(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that it is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, ancestry, religion, or national origin, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by the activities of individuals and groups.

The general assembly further finds that the advocacy of unlawful acts against persons and groups because of a person's or group's race, color, ancestry, religion, or national origin, for the purpose of inciting and provoking bodily injury or damage to property, poses a threat to public order and safety and should be the subject of criminal sanctions.

(2) A person commits ethnic intimidation if, with the intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, he:

(a) Knowingly causes bodily injury to another person; or

(b) By words or conduct, knowingly places another person in fear of imminent lawless action directed at that person or that person's property and such words or conduct are likely to produce bodily injury to that person or damage to that person's property;

or
(c) Knowingly causes damage to or destruction of the property of another person.

(3) Ethnic intimidation is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that a violation of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section is a class 5 felony.

(4) The criminal penalty provided int his section for ethnic intimidation does not preclude the victim of such action from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.

Thomas Frank Ross, 19, stands accused of attacking Christopher Tetreault, 18, late Friday night. Tetreault suffered a broken nose. Both men are students and live in an on campus dormitory

According to reports, the two boys were in another student's room with a larger group that was playing video games - Tetreault told police that Ross blamed him for a bad smell in the room because he "eats all those Asian noodles." Tetreault also told police that Ross had made derogatory remarks to him about being part Chinese in the past, and that he was "fed up."

Tetreault told police he swore at Ross, who then punched and choked him, the report said. Tetreault said he threw a Monster Energy drink at Ross in an attempt to stop the attack.

Ross told police Tetreault made derogatory remarks to him about being Jewish and that he didn't even know Tetreault was part Asian, the report said. He said he only hit Tetreault after Tetreault threw his drink on him.

Other students in the room disagreed about some of the details but told police that Ross made the comment about Tetreault eating noodles and that Ross hit or choked Tetreault before Tetreault threw the drink.

According to the police report, Ross stopped punching Tetreault when he started bleeding from the face.

Ross also faces a student disciplinary procedure through the Office of Student Conduct, which is separate from the criminal process.

Speaking generally, students accused of violent crimes face summary suspension from campus and cannot come on campus except for meetings with the Office of Student Conduct.

H. Michael's Take

Ironically - if this case proceeds to trial - the charge of Second Degree Assault - a Colorado Crime of Violence - mandates - if the Defendant is convicted - a minimum mandaory 5 year prison sentence.

However, it appears to me this case will most likely generate a self defense claim by the Defendant as regards his interaction with the alleged victim. What complicates matters is - in fact - the allegation of the commission of a Colorado Hate Crime. This allegation often confuses and misdirects the jury into focusing on the bias issue and not the assault issue.

It is clear to me that the Defendant's lawyer will have to walk a careful and clear line at trial on this issue - to prevent the jury - especially in a liberal jurisdiction such as Boulder Colorado - from "skipping" over the self defense issues and focusing instead on the emotional and less factual hate crimes "circus" of evidence.