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

[Kiranerys]

I fully agree that she believes that she can get herself a not guilty verdict, but I also think she takes a certain amount of pleasure in fantasizing about calling Al as a witness.

Oh for sure that's an added bonus for her. She is wicked to the core

 

[nyvictoria]

I’m not at all surprised. She’ll do anything to be in the spotlight.

 

[Cindizzi]

“The defendant was wanting to get new council,” Fourth Judicial District Attorney Michael Allen said. “What we got out of it instead, the court did not get a finding out of it, but instead set it back to the original division for an Arguello advisement, which means, typically, and I’m speaking in general terms here, somebody wants to represent themselves.”

Allen said that it would be speculation if Stauch will represent herself. Allen added that the change in council won’t change how they will prosecute the case.

“Absolutely not,” Allen answered. “It’s still a very serious case. We still have to make sure that we satisfy all the requirements of prosecuting a big case like this and we will continue to do that.”



https://www.fox21news.com/top-stories/letecia-stauch-asks-for-new-representation-before-preliminary-hearing/

 

[kittythehare]

I genuinely believe that she thinks she is clever enough to talk her way out of it!. She wants to sack her lawyers because they are probably advising her to stop spinning her lies to anyone who will listen and that she is jeopardising her defence (there is none but she is too stupid and arrogant to see that). She is a narcissist who believes she can outsmart everyone, even while her backside is locked up in jail she can't see that the world and his wife see through her. She thinks she is so clever she genuinely has no clue how stupid she is. Luckily the rest of us in the real world know better!.

No doubt she sees it as her calling.
It's insane the way some people who commit heinous crimes get to continue their public diatribes because 'they have rights'.
This will be extremely tedious, I imagine.

 

[Gibbo214]

“The defendant was wanting to get new council,” Fourth Judicial District Attorney Michael Allen said. “What we got out of it instead, the court did not get a finding out of it, but instead set it back to the original division for an Arguello advisement, which means, typically, and I’m speaking in general terms here, somebody wants to represent themselves.”

Allen said that it would be speculation if Stauch will represent herself. Allen added that the change in council won’t change how they will prosecute the case.

“Absolutely not,” Allen answered. “It’s still a very serious case. We still have to make sure that we satisfy all the requirements of prosecuting a big case like this and we will continue to do that.”



Letecia Stauch asks for new representation before preliminary hearing | FOX21 News Colorado

?Council? These people have studied the law?

 

[Gibbo214]

She is disgusting. This has as much to do with continuing to torture Al as it does with thinking she can outsmart the world. MOO.

I think that she is more concerned about torturing Landen.

 

[Seattle1]

?Council? These people have studied the law?

Seems Fox21 missing their weekend editor!

Allen added that the change in council won’t change how they will prosecute the case.

I believe the news report should have read "counsel" and not "council."

Nonetheless - I agree that LS changing lawyers probably won't change how the DA prosecutes the case.

Convening on 'Counsel' and 'Council'

 

[ChatteringBirds]

I feel this is a delay tactic, partially to hurt Gannon's parents, to create drama, & maybe so she can claim her right to an attorney is being violated.

So what if she said now she didn't want her attorneys? She's going to say later they should have found her new ones.

 

[Algo214]

I feel this is a delay tactic, partially to hurt Gannon's parents, to create drama, & maybe so she can claim her right to an attorney is being violated.

So what if she said now she didn't want her attorneys? She's going to say later they should have found her new ones.

Fortunately that's not how it works, in this Arguello advisement she needs to make "a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel"
Also "Other factors considered by courts in determining whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent include...and whether the defendant was attempting to delay or manipulate the proceedings."

Simply put, she has to be advised about the implications of self-representation, be inquired about her knowledge of procedure and the Court has to make an objective record that a waiver of right to counsel is being made "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" the latter meaning "all facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter"

It's quite a high bar to meet from what I can see. She needs to be doing her homework if she wants to go ahead without counsel
(Quotes from Justia Law on People v Arguello")

 

[NCWatcher]

I feel this is a delay tactic, partially to hurt Gannon's parents, to create drama, & maybe so she can claim her right to an attorney is being violated.

So what if she said now she didn't want her attorneys? She's going to say later they should have found her new ones.

I'm sure she'll say that. But having the Arguello hearing will mean saying it is meaningless legally.

I'm not at all sure her request for new attorneys is a delay tactic, done for drama, or primarily designed to hurt anyone related to GS.

I expect she is extraordinarily frustrated with her attorneys and has been for some time. Remember her letter to the judge? If that tactic was ever discussed with the attorneys I'm sure they would have told her not to do it. And as I said last year, I think the defense attorneys likely pushed for the competency hearings because she wasn't cooperating and wouldn't listen to them. I'm not sure the question of competency was LS's idea but her attorneys needed cover. I expect she's been more of an handful because her attorneys are women and I don't think LS relates well to other women.

I'm not saying LS is right to feel the way she does. But I think she sincerely (but wrongly) believes she knows what should be emphasized in her defense. It's like someone who is charged after a car accident with injuries insisting the charge should be dropped because the cop didn't cross the "T" in her name on the paperwork. Without the cross the T could have been an L and so maybe it wasn't her name & maybe she wasn't even at the scene. Never mind there are eyewitnesses, her DL# is on the paperwork, there's a mug shot of her, her fingerprints were taken soon after the accident when she was taken away & charged....but the T! The T! Look at the T! It's an L!
JMO

 

[casesensitive]

It may be a coincidence that she filed to dismiss her defense lawyers after their hired shrink also found her competent to stand trial. The fact that her defense team requested another evaluation after the prosecution's shrink found her competent, seems to denote that they were hoping for an insanity defense.

I have seen (on my favouite crime shows) where killers fire their attorneys and represent themselves at trial. And every case I have seen, they act like they are mentally ill in court in an effort to sway the jury.

I'm not sure why she fired her defense team, but I can imagine that once she was found competent, they wouldn't agree to a defense of one of her lies, eg that Al had drug debts that caused Gannon to be killed.

Based on the evidence, no other lawyer will agree to any of her ridiculous lines of defense, and as we know, she is stupid and arrogant enough to go it alone. I pity her current lawyers who may be stuck with her since it hasn't been ruled on as yet. jmo

 

[Megnut]

I imagine that the competency testing was ordered because her defense team CANNOT WORK WITH HER.

Think about it. She's in jail, separated from AN AUDIENCE, all she has is all that time IN HER HEAD. We got a small sense of what it's like in there from her interviews. G had the key, the gate, cut his foot, because Albert's tools, because flower box, and bandaging on the side of the car, good to go.

And Eguardo and Kleenex in her knickers and her constantly violating constitutional rights. Atrocious grammar. Broomsticks and peanut butter.

I imagine that, when her attorneys TRY to talk to her, she instead tries to do all the talking. How can they create a defense or even advise her of what to expect if they can't get a word in edgewise?

I think she wants to fire them because SHE doesn't want to hear ANYTHING they have to say. I think SHE THINKS she's been misunderstood, and once everybody realizes Eguardo did all this and she was just a loving parent loving, she'll get that apology. I don't think she is CAPABLE of understanding the brevity of what she's done, only what she PERCEIVES as having been done to her.

Talk about an IMPOSSIBLE client.

My guess, she wants to take the stand. So she can say nearly a year's worth of saved up dialogue. No defense would allow that! Because it would open her up to cross examination by the prosecution! I'm betting that every time her defense team tells her why it'd be A VERY BAD IDEA for her to take the stand, she tells them that she has constitutional rights! Which of course she does -- it's surely in her best interest to say as little as possible, to let her attorneys speak for her! She just can't not talk!!!

If her attorneys could say so, I imagine what they're thinking is, "can someone please muzzle her so we can tell her what she needs to know and do so that she can have the fairest trial?" That's their job!!!! Which IMO SHE'S not letting them do!!

Too busy talking about mean peanut butter messages.

She makes Jodi Arias sound sensible.

JMO

 

[Tealgrove]

I imagine that the competency testing was ordered because her defense team CANNOT WORK WITH HER.

Think about it. She's in jail, separated from AN AUDIENCE, all she has is all that time IN HER HEAD. We got a small sense of what it's like in there from her interviews. G had the key, the gate, cut his foot, because Albert's tools, because flower box, and bandaging on the side of the car, good to go.

And Eguardo and Kleenex in her knickers and her constantly violating constitutional rights. Atrocious grammar. Broomsticks and peanut butter.

I imagine that, when her attorneys TRY to talk to her, she instead tries to do all the talking. How can they create a defense or even advise her of what to expect if they can't get a word in edgewise?

I think she wants to fire them because SHE doesn't want to hear ANYTHING they have to say. I think SHE THINKS she's been misunderstood, and once everybody realizes Eguardo did all this and she was just a loving parent loving, she'll get that apology. I don't think she is CAPABLE of understanding the brevity of what she's done, only what she PERCEIVES as having been done to her.

Talk about an IMPOSSIBLE client.

My guess, she wants to take the stand. So she can say nearly a year's worth of saved up dialogue. No defense would allow that! Because it would open her up to cross examination by the prosecution! I'm betting that every time her defense team tells her why it'd be A VERY BAD IDEA for her to take the stand, she tells them that she has constitutional rights! Which of course she does -- it's surely in her best interest to say as little as possible, to let her attorneys speak for her! She just can't not talk!!!

If her attorneys could say so, I imagine what they're thinking is, "can someone please muzzle her so we can tell her what she needs to know and do so that she can have the fairest trial?" That's their job!!!! Which IMO SHE'S not letting them do!!

Too busy talking about mean peanut butter messages.

She makes Jodi Arias sound sensible.

JMO

^^^^^^^^^
THIS! ALL OF THIS! SPOT ON!

 

[casesensitive]

I imagine that the competency testing was ordered because her defense team CANNOT WORK WITH HER.

Think about it. She's in jail, separated from AN AUDIENCE, all she has is all that time IN HER HEAD. We got a small sense of what it's like in there from her interviews. G had the key, the gate, cut his foot, because Albert's tools, because flower box, and bandaging on the side of the car, good to go.

And Eguardo and Kleenex in her knickers and her constantly violating constitutional rights. Atrocious grammar. Broomsticks and peanut butter.

I imagine that, when her attorneys TRY to talk to her, she instead tries to do all the talking. How can they create a defense or even advise her of what to expect if they can't get a word in edgewise?

I think she wants to fire them because SHE doesn't want to hear ANYTHING they have to say. I think SHE THINKS she's been misunderstood, and once everybody realizes Eguardo did all this and she was just a loving parent loving, she'll get that apology. I don't think she is CAPABLE of understanding the brevity of what she's done, only what she PERCEIVES as having been done to her.

Talk about an IMPOSSIBLE client.

My guess, she wants to take the stand. So she can say nearly a year's worth of saved up dialogue. No defense would allow that! Because it would open her up to cross examination by the prosecution! I'm betting that every time her defense team tells her why it'd be A VERY BAD IDEA for her to take the stand, she tells them that she has constitutional rights! Which of course she does -- it's surely in her best interest to say as little as possible, to let her attorneys speak for her! She just can't not talk!!!

If her attorneys could say so, I imagine what they're thinking is, "can someone please muzzle her so we can tell her what she needs to know and do so that she can have the fairest trial?" That's their job!!!! Which IMO SHE'S not letting them do!!

Too busy talking about mean peanut butter messages.

She makes Jodi Arias sound sensible.

JMO

You said it so much better than me. Totally agree with your entire post.

 

[Algo214]

If I were her attorney, even if I was mandated as a public defense counsel, I'd quit.
There's plenty of other fields a lawyer can practice, she isn't worth it so if I have to give up my position as a defense counsel, so be it.

 

[CharadeYouAre]

I wonder if she can’t afford an attorney...

 

[NCWatcher]

It may be a coincidence that she filed to dismiss her defense lawyers after their hired shrink also found her competent to stand trial. The fact that her defense team requested another evaluation after the prosecution's shrink found her competent, seems to denote that they were hoping for an insanity defense.

I have seen (on my favouite crime shows) where killers fire their attorneys and represent themselves at trial. And every case I have seen, they act like they are mentally ill in court in an effort to sway the jury.

I'm not sure why she fired her defense team, but I can imagine that once she was found competent, they wouldn't agree to a defense of one of her lies, eg that Al had drug debts that caused Gannon to be killed.

Based on the evidence, no other lawyer will agree to any of her ridiculous lines of defense, and as we know, she is stupid and arrogant enough to go it alone. I pity her current lawyers who may be stuck with her since it hasn't been ruled on as yet. jmo

BBM

Maybe. But lack of competency to stand trial isn't the same thing as insanity as a defense. A defendant can be competent for trial yet be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In fact, the only way a verdict of insanity can arise is if the person is competent to stand trial. So I don't really see an obvious connection to an insanity defense in her attorneys' actions.

Leaving aside how well TV reflects real life, it's also possible that people who fire their attorneys and represent themselves in court aren't just "acting" a bit mentally ill to sway a jury. It's possible they really are! At least IMO representing oneself if the charge is serious is "nuts." Not necessarily legally "insane" but plain old nuts.
JMO

 

[10ofRods]

I wonder if she can’t afford an attorney...

She has been given public defenders. I think it's pretty clear she cannot afford an attorney. But she wants to fire her public defenders, given to her at no cost by the State of Colorado. Since she cannot afford an attorney, they are advising her of her rights and she's requesting to represent herself.

She has never been able to afford her own attorney, that we know of, nor did she have an income.

My view is that the public defenders are wisely advising her to accept a plea bargain and she thinks that she's innocent and can "prove" that to a jury if only she can get in front of the jury.

Most public defenders are accustomed to difficult clients and most of them will continue to work as hard as possible for their clients (she has two, I believe).

I'm sure she'll say that. But having the Arguello hearing will mean saying it is meaningless legally.

I'm not at all sure her request for new attorneys is a delay tactic, done for drama, or primarily designed to hurt anyone related to GS.

I expect she is extraordinarily frustrated with her attorneys and has been for some time. Remember her letter to the judge? If that tactic was ever discussed with the attorneys I'm sure they would have told her not to do it. And as I said last year, I think the defense attorneys likely pushed for the competency hearings because she wasn't cooperating and wouldn't listen to them. I'm not sure the question of competency was LS's idea but her attorneys needed cover. I expect she's been more of an handful because her attorneys are women and I don't think LS relates well to other women.

I'm not saying LS is right to feel the way she does. But I think she sincerely (but wrongly) believes she knows what should be emphasized in her defense. It's like someone who is charged after a car accident with injuries insisting the charge should be dropped because the cop didn't cross the "T" in her name on the paperwork. Without the cross the T could have been an L and so maybe it wasn't her name & maybe she wasn't even at the scene. Never mind there are eyewitnesses, her DL# is on the paperwork, there's a mug shot of her, her fingerprints were taken soon after the accident when she was taken away & charged....but the T! The T! Look at the T! It's an L!
JMO

I expect that a woman who got exceptionally frustrated with a defenseless little boy is very likely to have a low bar for frustration.

She is no different than most other criminal defendants in regards to her view of her own innocence or her belief that the charges are too stiff.

In this case, anyone who is trying to distract with technical issues is likely legally sane but completely insane from the point of view of an ordinary onlooker.

I don't think she's going for a technicality, though. I think she wants to argue her case in front of a jury, she thinks her husband is responsible, and/or that she has demons inside of her. Or vampires. IMO.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I imagine that the competency testing was ordered because her defense team CANNOT WORK WITH HER.

Think about it. She's in jail, separated from AN AUDIENCE, all she has is all that time IN HER HEAD. We got a small sense of what it's like in there from her interviews. G had the key, the gate, cut his foot, because Albert's tools, because flower box, and bandaging on the side of the car, good to go.

And Eguardo and Kleenex in her knickers and her constantly violating constitutional rights. Atrocious grammar. Broomsticks and peanut butter.

I imagine that, when her attorneys TRY to talk to her, she instead tries to do all the talking. How can they create a defense or even advise her of what to expect if they can't get a word in edgewise?

I think she wants to fire them because SHE doesn't want to hear ANYTHING they have to say. I think SHE THINKS she's been misunderstood, and once everybody realizes Eguardo did all this and she was just a loving parent loving, she'll get that apology. I don't think she is CAPABLE of understanding the brevity of what she's done, only what she PERCEIVES as having been done to her.

Talk about an IMPOSSIBLE client.

My guess, she wants to take the stand. So she can say nearly a year's worth of saved up dialogue. No defense would allow that! Because it would open her up to cross examination by the prosecution! I'm betting that every time her defense team tells her why it'd be A VERY BAD IDEA for her to take the stand, she tells them that she has constitutional rights! Which of course she does -- it's surely in her best interest to say as little as possible, to let her attorneys speak for her! She just can't not talk!!!

If her attorneys could say so, I imagine what they're thinking is, "can someone please muzzle her so we can tell her what she needs to know and do so that she can have the fairest trial?" That's their job!!!! Which IMO SHE'S not letting them do!!

Too busy talking about mean peanut butter messages.

She makes Jodi Arias sound sensible.

JMO

Wow, I'd already forgotten about the Kleenex.

 

[NCWatcher]

She has been given public defenders. I think it's pretty clear she cannot afford an attorney. But she wants to fire her public defenders, given to her at no cost by the State of Colorado. Since she cannot afford an attorney, they are advising her of her rights and she's requesting to represent herself.

She has never been able to afford her own attorney, that we know of, nor did she have an income.

My view is that the public defenders are wisely advising her to accept a plea bargain and she thinks that she's innocent and can "prove" that to a jury if only she can get in front of the jury.

Most public defenders are accustomed to difficult clients and most of them will continue to work as hard as possible for their clients (she has two, I believe).



I expect that a woman who got exceptionally frustrated with a defenseless little boy is very likely to have a low bar for frustration.

She is no different than most other criminal defendants in regards to her view of her own innocence or her belief that the charges are too stiff.

In this case, anyone who is trying to distract with technical issues is likely legally sane but completely insane from the point of view of an ordinary onlooker.

I don't think she's going for a technicality, though. I think she wants to argue her case in front of a jury, she thinks her husband is responsible, and/or that she has demons inside of her. Or vampires. IMO.

Last paragraph BBM

I wasn't suggesting LS would want to use a technical defense just that she's likely focusing on the wrong things. Who cares if AS was a crappy husband? That's as irrelevant as a driver who focuses on the lack of a crossed T in paperwork after an accident (although I do realize some kinds of technicalities win cases.)

I expect you are right she wants to tell her "story." But I seriously doubt she plans to say she has demons inside as that would be too close to admitting responsibility.

JMO