Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #49

[crhedBngr]

Good Morning!

Justice for Gannon, soon!

JMVHO.

 

[crhedBngr]

Today's treats . . .

 

[Pianoturtle]

I thought this had been taken care of, but I guess not. Nothing on the criminal case.

Date Len Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
3/29/21-Divorce
11:00 AM 1Hr STAUCH, LETECIA Status Conference D212020DR30309 El Paso County DIV 16-ROOM S370 (South Tower)


link: Seventh Judicial District » Docket Search

That’s awful. I’d guess COVID put divorces to the end of the dockets. My cousin’s divorce was supposed to be final this past January (2020). But his ex played some games and got the final hearing delayed until April 1. On March 31, the courts were shut down. So now the divorce won’t be final until next year sometime. 2 years or more after initially filing.

 

[Seattle1]

Thanks @SleuthBee!

BBM

It's in the court order dated 6/12 that mandated the competency evaluation @Seattle1.

Colorado Judicial Branch

The judge ordered the evaluation be videotaped (likely based on an incorrect statute as previously discussed) but the order states the request came from "The People." See D-15.

I don't see where the State initially made that request or the arguments used to support the request. Personally I suspect the new statute re: insanity and diminished capacity evals that the judge cited was used. But I may not have found the correct document with the argument or it may be one we can't open. Still, I assume the court order wasn't mistaken that the State made the request.
JMO

Thanks @NCWatcher -- I guess this makes sense why the Judge requested each side defend their position for taping or not taping the evaluation -- or prove the correct interpretation of the latest statute. I don't recall anything different about the first evaluation order -- I think it was "check the box" but the Colorado Court site is down right now so I can't confirm.

I trust the Court will make a decision before the 2nd evaluation begins. I think this trial is going to be full of these types of hick-ups. Enough...

 

[NCWatcher]

Thanks @NCWatcher -- I guess this makes sense why the Judge requested each side defend their position for taping or not taping the evaluation -- or prove the correct interpretation of the latest statute. I don't recall anything different about the first evaluation order -- I think it was "check the box" but the Colorado Court site is down right now so I can't confirm.

I trust the Court will make a decision before the 2nd evaluation begins. I think this trial is going to be full of these types of hick-ups. Enough...

We'll see.

Re: proving the correct interpretation of the new statute: I don't know that it's possible to determine the "correct" interpretation with full certainty. Based on a court's actions, we can have a legally-binding decision, or even a precedent-setting one. But not necessarily a "correct" one.

The defense brief demonstrated (pretty strongly IMO re: the research note) the bill's sponsor didn't intend for the bill to apply to court-ordered competency evals. But a bill's sponsor doesn't get to say what the final law is. The defense team watched tapes of the legislative discussion of the bill but all data weren't available due to technology failures. So data re: the legislators' beliefs when considering the bill are absent. But even if they hadn't been, discussion during a bill's hearing isn't the final law either.

Unfortunately, it's just a poorly-written law IMO. If it really was absolutely intended to apply only to insanity and diminished capacity evals and not to competency evals (as I personally suspect since that's what the research note by the bill's sponsor says) why didn't the bill itself include a section saying something like "nothing in this statute is intended to apply to pre-trial competency evaluations..."? I guess it's not possible to write laws that alway say what they DON'T cover but confusion re: this statute was anticipated-- hence, the research note.

Re: box-checking: I find it very hard to believe videotapes of defendants' pre-trial competency evals are routinely supplied to the state in CO. It seems like such a perversion of the 5th amendment. But different states do things differently. And I don't believe the CO defense team was initially outraged by the state's request or at least that wasn't reported in coverage of that hearing. In my state, I expect most defense attorneys would have been apoplectic! And I suspect that as a general rule, public defenders are more likely to be dealing with incompetent clients. (I'm not saying poor = incompetent. But people with money to hire private counsel may be more likely to have had higher-paying jobs that required mental competency at some point. Past competency may loosely correlate with future competency.) So the defense team must be pretty familiar with competency evaluation.

I suspect the 2nd eval will be taped. But I expect the tapes will be held by the court or by the evaluator until the judge rules. I had asked on 9/21 if anyone knew when the judge was to rule. @Niner replied based on personal notes taken during the hearing:

"opening brief due 9/28/20; response brief due 10/16/20 & reply brief by 10/30/20."

I expect the second eval is due to start well before November. Or at least I hope it is as TS's next court date appears to be Nov 12.

So we'll see.
JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I can't help but think of all the sweet, little kids who should be getting ready for Halloween, costumes and trick or treating instead of being killed at the hands of another.

Gannon, Bella, CeCe, Noah, Camden, Cupcake, Darnell, Maleah, Lizzie, Amiah, Evelyn, Faye, AJ, Hania, Baby King, Lucas, Caylee and the list goes on and on.............

I find some peace knowing that they're all together in a much better place having their own celebration, but it still hurts.

Fly high angels!

 

[Seattle1]

We'll see.

Re: proving the correct interpretation of the new statute: I don't know that it's possible to determine the "correct" interpretation with full certainty. Based on a court's actions, we can have a legally-binding decision, or even a precedent-setting one. But not necessarily a "correct" one.

The defense brief demonstrated (pretty strongly IMO re: the research note) the bill's sponsor didn't intend for the bill to apply to court-ordered competency evals. But a bill's sponsor doesn't get to say what the final law is. The defense team watched tapes of the legislative discussion of the bill but all data weren't available due to technology failures. So data re: the legislators' beliefs when considering the bill are absent. But even if they hadn't been, discussion during a bill's hearing isn't the final law either.

Unfortunately, it's just a poorly-written law IMO. If it really was absolutely intended to apply only to insanity and diminished capacity evals and not to competency evals (as I personally suspect since that's what the research note by the bill's sponsor says) why didn't the bill itself include a section saying something like "nothing in this statute is intended to apply to pre-trial competency evaluations..."? I guess it's not possible to write laws that alway say what they DON'T cover but confusion re: this statute was anticipated-- hence, the research note.

Re: box-checking: I find it very hard to believe videotapes of defendants' pre-trial competency evals are routinely supplied to the state in CO. It seems like such a perversion of the 5th amendment. But different states do things differently. And I don't believe the CO defense team was initially outraged by the state's request or at least that wasn't reported in coverage of that hearing. In my state, I expect most defense attorneys would have been apoplectic! And I suspect that as a general rule, public defenders are more likely to be dealing with incompetent clients. (I'm not saying poor = incompetent. But people with money to hire private counsel may be more likely to have had higher-paying jobs that required mental competency at some point. Past competency may loosely correlate with future competency.) So the defense team must be pretty familiar with competency evaluation.

I suspect the 2nd eval will be taped. But I expect the tapes will be held by the court or by the evaluator until the judge rules. I had asked on 9/21 if anyone knew when the judge was to rule. @Niner replied based on personal notes taken during the hearing:

"opening brief due 9/28/20; response brief due 10/16/20 & reply brief by 10/30/20."

I expect the second eval is due to start well before November. Or at least I hope it is as TS's next court date appears to be Nov 12.

So we'll see.
JMO

I was able to review the "checkbox" order for the competency evaluation and confirmed the final instruction orders CDHS to provide the Court with the original and two copies of the evaluation report. I never anticipated a video here per this order. (I've read orders in other cases that will reference any applicable video/audio format).

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user... In-Custody Defendant Redacted by Records.pdf

 

[NCWatcher]

I was able to review the "checkbox" order for the competency evaluation and confirmed the final instruction orders CDHS to provide the Court with the original and two copies of the evaluation report. I never anticipated a video here per this order. (I've read orders in other cases that will reference any applicable video/audio format).

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/Order for Evaluation of In-Custody Defendant Redacted by Records.pdf

Hmm. I wondered then how the Order to videotape the evaluation was conveyed to Pueblo? Because D-15 (Order for Competency Evaluation) does state in #5 "The People have requested and the Court ORDERS the competency evaluation be video recorded pursuant to C.R.S. 16-8-106(1)(b) and -108(1)(a)." That is the new statute that applies specifically to other types of evals. And it does require copies of the recording to be provided to all parties with the evaluation report (and I can see why that might be the case for insanity evals and diminished capacity evals.)
JMO

 

[crhedBngr]

Good Afternoon.

Tea and cookies, for a change!

 

[Lovethesouth]

Good Afternoon.

Tea and cookies, for a change!

View attachment 266880

Thank you ..:: good timing... would love some Mexican with sparkling Smirnoff...you are awesome and always on time

 

[Lovethesouth]

I thought this had been taken care of, but I guess not. Nothing on the criminal case.

Date Len Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
3/29/21-Divorce
11:00 AM 1Hr STAUCH, LETECIA Status Conference D212020DR30309 El Paso County DIV 16-ROOM S370 (South Tower)


link: Seventh Judicial District » Docket Search

Sorry but I would consider myself divorced moo... that looney tune in jail so. The H no I would not consider that my spouse law or otherwise ,.,

: )

 

[Lovethesouth]

A few new doc on judicial site

Colorado Judicial Branch

 

[missingm]

A few new doc on judicial site

Colorado Judicial Branch

So the defense team psychologist gets to view the videotape of the previous evaluation? Sounds like the defense wants to have their cake and not share any with the prosecutors.

 

[MoeInVA]

Hmm. I wondered then how the Order to videotape the evaluation was conveyed to Pueblo? Because D-15 (Order for Competency Evaluation) does state in #5 "The People have requested and the Court ORDERS the competency evaluation be video recorded pursuant to C.R.S. 16-8-106(1)(b) and -108(1)(a)." That is the new statute that applies specifically to other types of evals. And it does require copies of the recording to be provided to all parties with the evaluation report (and I can see why that might be the case for insanity evals and diminished capacity evals.)
JMO

maybe prosecution made the motion in the closed hearing on the matter and defense didn’t have the facts to object and didn’t follow up so it was just ordered.
FWIW - I think the research note you found AND THE FISCAL NOTE make it clear the intent was to only require the video in the other evaluations. The legislators only appropriated money for taping the other evaluations. There are a LOT more competency evaluations than there are of the insanity plea evaluations. That law is definitely not applicable.

However other laws do give the court ability to order a tape and give the right for all parties to get any records reviewed or created by the evaluator.

IMO If the judge allows the 2nd competency evaluator to see the tape it will strengthen the prosecution’s argument to let them see it too. So I think the defense is really shooting themselves in the foot with this motion. I guess they are giving up or gambling that it may help their chances of getting the desired outcome. INTERESTING

 

[crhedBngr]

Good afternoon!

 

[NCWatcher]

maybe prosecution made the motion in the closed hearing on the matter and defense didn’t have the facts to object and didn’t follow up so it was just ordered.
FWIW - I think the research note you found AND THE FISCAL NOTE make it clear the intent was to only require the video in the other evaluations. The legislators only appropriated money for taping the other evaluations. There are a LOT more competency evaluations than there are of the insanity plea evaluations. That law is definitely not applicable.

However other laws do give the court ability to order a tape and give the right for all parties to get any records reviewed or created by the evaluator.

IMO If the judge allows the 2nd competency evaluator to see the tape it will strengthen the prosecution’s argument to let them see it too. So I think the defense is really shooting themselves in the foot with this motion. I guess they are giving up or gambling that it may help their chances of getting the desired outcome. INTERESTING

I agree the defense may have been caught flat-footed initially re: the state's videotape request and the fact the fairly new statute for those other types of evals really doesn't seem to apply. But the "check box" order @Seattle1 discussed at 12:11 on Oct 5 doesn't have the order for videotaping. And isn't that the order that controls the eval process? So that's why I wondered how the videotaping order got conveyed to Pueblo.

I agree the Privilege Waiver statute you cited @MoeInVA is very interesting given the defense request re: the tape and the second evaluator. But in the case of that statute, we do know the defense is quite familiar with it. They discussed it in their earlier briefs used to get the judge to quash multiple subpoenas.

The state seemed to be claiming the subpoenas were legit because they covered TS's "history" and the comptency evaluator would ask TS about that (and therefore must be "relying upon it.") The judge disagreed with the state. So I don't know what the defense is thinking now.

Perhaps I'm naive but I don't know if the defense truly has a desired outcome re: competency except that, in general, the older a case is, the more the defense tends to benefit. But it's not as though CO is going to let her go if she's incompetent! Nor are these particular attorneys likely to be able to step down if even she is found incompetent. Also though, there's probably some big-time covering of their own "effective counsel" you-know-whats driving the defense requests re: pre-trial evals. Mostly though, I expect TS is truly not aiding in her own defense in their eyes. (Not saying that means actual legal incompetence.) But in their eyes (and according to many here on WS!) TS is delusional, out of touch with reality, and just plain nuts.

JMO

 

[MoeInVA]

I agree the defense may have been caught flat-footed initially re: the state's videotape request and the fact the fairly new statute for those other types of evals really doesn't seem to apply. But the "check box" order @Seattle1 discussed at 12:11 on Oct 5 doesn't have the order for videotaping. And isn't that the order that controls the eval process? So that's why I wondered how the videotaping order got conveyed to Pueblo.

I agree the Privilege Waiver statute you cited @MoeInVA is very interesting given the defense request re: the tape and the second evaluator. But in the case of that statute, we do know the defense is quite familiar with it. They discussed it in their earlier briefs used to get the judge to quash multiple subpoenas.

The state seemed to be claiming the subpoenas were legit because they covered TS's "history" and the comptency evaluator would ask TS about that (and therefore must be "relying upon it.") The judge disagreed with the state. So I don't know what the defense is thinking now.

Perhaps I'm naive but I don't know if the defense truly has a desired outcome re: competency except that, in general, the older a case is, the more the defense tends to benefit. But it's not as though CO is going to let her go if she's incompetent! Nor are these particular attorneys likely to be able to step down if even she is found incompetent. Also though, there's probably some big-time covering of their own "effective counsel" you-know-whats driving the defense requests re: pre-trial evals. Mostly though, I expect TS is truly not aiding in her own defense in their eyes. (Not saying that means actual legal incompetence.) But in their eyes (and according to many here on WS!) TS is delusional, out of touch with reality, and just plain nuts.

JMO

I guess we shall see! Very interesting area of public policy to ponder and appreciate all your insights.

Wondering if the media has filed FOIA for the autopsy yet. I haven’t seen any murmurings yet. Anyone else?? My read of Colorado law and Colorado media is that this is fair ground to be pursued.

 

[Niner]

Thursday, October 8th:
*Pretrial Conference Hearing (@ 9am MT) – CO - *Sherie Farstveet charged (5/5/20) with 1st degree official misconduct (leaking arrest affidavit for Gannon Stauch’s murder case).
SF was issued a citation for the misdemeanor. She could face between three months & 364 days in jail or a fine of between $250 & $1,000 or both if convicted.
7/27/20 Update: Disposition hearing held. Next pretrial hearing on 10/8/20.

 

[Pianoturtle]

So the defense team psychologist gets to view the videotape of the previous evaluation? Sounds like the defense wants to have their cake and not share any with the prosecutors.

The request was denied. If the psychologist gets to see it, so does the prosecution.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...Grimmett be Permitted to Review the Video.pdf

 

[missingm]

The request was denied. If the psychologist gets to see it, so does the prosecution.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/Order - D20 Motion requesting that Dr Grimmett be Permitted to Review the Video.pdf

Beautiful response by the judge.