Seven months after IE ("PEP") hand delivered an 80+ page complaint to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), requesting an investigation of DA Linda Stanley, plus six additional prosecutors from the 11th Judicial District,
citing twelve groups of ethical violations, on October 30, 2023, the Supreme Court, State of Colorado, set a case for a Disciplinary Complaint against Linda Stanley (Case Number: 23PDJ041).
The alleged violations by Linda Stanley are outlined in the Complaint as
Claims 1-7, and the two-week hearing by a Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court is currently in progress.
CLAIM I
[A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness—Colo. RPC 1.3]
CLAIM II
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]
CLAIM III
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]
CLAIM IV
[Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyer—Colo. RPC 5.1(a) and (b)]
CLAIM V
[Attempt to Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice—Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and Colo. RPC 8.4(d)
Respondent’s Extrajudicial Statements Become More Brazen
151. During the television interview on [KRDO]
channel 13, Respondent made the following statements about defendants Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Crawford:
CLAIM VI
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]
CLAIM VII
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]
_______________________________________
IE ("PEP") cited 12 groups of violations in her Complaint filed with OARC, but the actual Complaint filed against Stanley and currently being heard by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge CSC, cites only 7 Claims.
IMO, somebody wasn't happy about this.
After viewing testimony from the hearing (MSM quoted below), compared to the the actual alleged violations in Claims 1-7, making up the subject Complaint, the following notes to the Complaint serve to restate my concern about the appearance of undue influence by IE over this disciplinary process and hearing.
Claim II --Pretrial Publicity,
Respondent violated the rule as follows:
...when she [LS] told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”
It appears to me that the Complaint cites IE's version from the defense Motion for sanctions for violating the Pretrial Publicity Order which failed to accurately reflect that the quoted statement above was not told to media but a response to a direct question by a reporter, after the press conference ended. This is easily confirmed by the transcript of the press conference linked in this thread.
August and early September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—
Valid violation of the rule (Pretrial Publicity) as cited.
CLAIM III--Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—
Respondent violated this rule on several occasions, including but not limited to:
On May 5, 2021, when she told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”
Same as above-- this was a response to direct question.
In August and September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—
Valid violation of the rule (Prosecutor's Extrajudicial Comments).
In response to defense Motion for Sanctions of Sept 16, 2021 for violation of the Court's Pre-Trial Publicity Order of June 3, 2021, presiding Judge Murphy said he wouldn't order it, but that it seemed reasonable to limit interaction and interviews with the media regarding a specific case that you are prosecuting.
I recall Murphy stopped IE's argument to repeat he would not rule on the Motion, and made record that he was not issuing another Order than the Order he previously issued--saying if there's a violation it's going to be a self-inflicted wound. (IE put the defense Motion for Sanctions on hold-- waiting for the new audience).
Relative to Mike King's "Profiling Evil," while I the Complaint accurately reflects violations by LS for Pretrial Publicity and making written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the youtube/podcast ended, the Complaint is silent about program Title "Profiling Evil" and simply focused on the relevant violations by the respondent.
That said, IMO, it doesn't follow that State witnesses such as Stan Garnett, and the hired ethics expert witness, John Suthers, would then go above and beyond to parrot from IE's own Complaint filed with OARC. (see quoted MSM below).
Here, Suthers didn't even bother with his own statement, and simply mimicked the comment made by Lama when he addressed the old defense Motion for Sanctions that IE saved for a new Judge.
Funny, NOT funny, how this works: "Profiling Evil" wasn't an issue for Judge Murphy (in spite of IE's best argument), and after the subject Complaint was also silent on the program Title, we suddenly have two paid, State witnesses going rogue to make an issue out of something that doesn't appear on the actual Complaint before them? Nice...
I suppose it worked when tweaking defense Motions already settled only to put the same before Ramsey Lama, where they were swallowed whole, why not get the your colleagues to do the same to get your own agenda on record-- after it never made the formal Complaint. It's not credible, and it never was!
Zero confidence in OARC! MOO
DENVER/7 10/31/23
THE COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
arkvalleyvoice.com
?...
