CONVICTION OVERTURNED CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, found deceased, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 #70 *overturned April 2026*

[NoeticSoul]

The recent development in this case is maddening.

The beast has reared her ugly head. Again.
I think she will lose. Again.
I could say more but don’t want to get banned.

On a lighter note, a couple of my favorite hobbies is writing little ditty’s/poems, and journaling. It often helps ground me when I’m feeling sad, mad, emotional, and/or stressed about something. I promise, I’m going somewhere with this….

Last night I wiped the beast from my mind and thought alot about the most important person in the case- the poor little victim Gannon, who lost the most- his beautiful, innocent life. Suddenly I felt the urge to write and wrote a little ditty/tribute, incorporated a few things we learned about Gannon via following the case, and thought I’d share:

Beautiful, lovable, sweet, sweet
boy;
Shining bright star, and beacon of
joy;
Loved Sonic, Switch, and the color
blue;
A loving kind soul, so pure and
true;
“Here for Gannon”, a fitting
motto;
You’ll never be forgotten, brave
hero!

My heart goes out to Gannon’s Mom, Dad, Sister and all who loved him.
Losing a child and sibling in such a violent way by the hand of someone that was supposed to protect him, is unfathomable. So so sad the heartache and grief they’ve gone/are going through. I can’t imagine their pain. May they continue to stay strong as they go through another round with the beast.

Godspeed, I wish Gannon’s family and loved ones all the best as they endure through another possible trial and/or whatever possible antics, shenanigans the beast might try to pull.

IMHO

#HereForGannon

What a beautiful way to redirect your (and our) energy from this horror of a nightmare she-Devil. Thank you so much for sharing with everyone.

 

[nyvictoria]

WTF?!?!?!?!

She must be gloating. Not that I’m concerned. She’ll be convicted again. I feel for the family. They’ll have to look at this psycho again in court.

 

[heartandsoul]

Having had time to sit with this, I am so annoyed this was overlooked and given to her as an opportunity to appeal. Maddeningly frustrating.

I know the outcome will be the same, but the first trial was harrowing and it’s horrible to face this again.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Gannon was reported missing on Jan. 27, 2020, by his stepmother. It's on that day, according to prosecutors, that Stauch "viciously and deliberately" attacked the boy in his bedroom by stabbing him multiple times, hitting him in the head with an object and then firing a gun at him three times. One of the bullets struck Gannon in the head. The knife and object were never recovered. Gannon was missing for weeks before his remains were eventually found inside a suitcase in Florida.

Stauch was given two sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions. She was also sentenced to 12 years in prison and three years parole for tampering with a deceased human body, and 18 months for tampering with physical evidence.
All of that was thrown out and the appeals court ordered a new trial.

Appeals court overturns Letecia Stauch murder conviction

The Colorado Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Letecia Stauch, who was convicted of killing her stepson Gannon.

www.9news.com

 

[iamshadow21]

Super bummed. Yeah. That's about all I'm feeling right now.

Anyone know if it will be the same judge? Werner was excellent, meticulous, and this ruling doesn't change my opinion of his handling of this case and of her, specifically. Another judge might manage the case or her far less well, and allow her to indulge in far more nonsense.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

The judge should have erred on the side of caution and stuck the juror.
That being said, in my opinion, the Appeals court ruled the juror biased by simple association. They presented no reason or evidence why the juror was in fact biased. I think that’s way too simplistic in a case with overwhelming evidence.
The State should appeal this. It’s worth a shot.
Next best outcome would be LS makes some plea deal. Maybe the State will agree to give her extra ice cream on Wednesdays or something.

 

[Jw192]

I've been taking a bit of an internet break recently but had to come here after seeing this. Sorry I'm gonna ramble.

F me.

Whilst the head part of me is accepting and somewhat reassured that judicial blunders such as this are rightfully addressed and acted upon fairly, my heart is shattered for Gannons family. It's shattered for all of you lovely lot too, so many of us sat here through every moment of this case and trial and we all know fine well how difficult it was. The thought of having to go through all of that again makes me feel sick! The state will obviously try to appeal this decision but it will be fruitless and I hate saying it, but rightfully so. What has happened here is a huge F up and whilst I hate that waste of skin with every fibre in me, you cannot pick and choose when it comes to judicial fairness.

So, what are the potentials here? Is it a possibility that some sort of plea agreement is discussed? Like, we all know the evidence that makes up this case and it's undeniably damning, her defense knows this too*... Add into the fact that I don't believe for a millisecond they will even attempt the DID NGRI playbook again due to what a farce it was - Old Dorothy and her Robert DeNiro stories could barely move a microphone or form a coherent sentence then, even with the help of her adult son who kept sneaking off to smoke in the stairwell, nevermind years later! She's old as heck, made a ridicule of herself and her education and practically ruined her own reputation - also, Lieticia struggled to keep the act up as it was then, so I HIGHLY doubt she will have been able to maintain the half a dozen Twilight character blag for the past few years and be able to fool even a pay for play expert - so I confidently predict that defense tactic is long gone... So what defense does she have now?
I think the defense will be very willing to try nab a deal somewhere (life with parole for example) and it could be a possibility that Gannons family would agree to something like that too in order to not have to go through all of this again. The spanner in those works though, is Lieticia. That creature truly believes that she is something and we all know just how much she enjoys causing pain to Gannons mama, I cannot see her agreeing to any deal at all. I think she's absolutely empowered by this, she's taking it as a complete win and is looking forward to rubbing it in their faces. Like, she knows that her dirty secrets and all her ridiculous fantasy island lies are already out, everyone knows she's the proven definition of a liar multiple times over, so she's not gonna give a damn about anything other than getting another five minutes of "fame" and causing more pain to the victims in this case.
So yah, I think it is very very likely to be going back to trial. That brings about a whole new nightmare for everyone involved - all of the witnesses, Harley, all of the evidence techs, the bridge workers, the police... - also, it will be an absolute mess trying to find a jury to serve on this case too! What an utter shlt show.

She's most certainly not going to get even a sniff of the word of a shot at bail though, let's not forget the whole monster can attack on the agents in the cruiser during one of her escape attempts. She hasn't a shot in hell, new trial or not.

Ultimately, she WILL be found guilty again and she WILL be convicted again, that monster is right where she needs to be for the rest of her evil life, but it's not going to be without a crap ton of new pain over god knows how much time and, a ridiculous amount of more money spent by tax payers.

I hate it.

* I've not looked/seen yet but who are her defense now? We allllll witnessed the show in trial with her lawyers, they couldn't stand her either and all but admitted that they didn't wanna be there... Surely it's not still those two?!

 

[tlcya]

(1) The court shall sustain a challenge for cause on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) Absence of any qualification prescribed by statute to render a person competent as a juror;
(b) Relationship within the third degree, by blood, adoption, or marriage, to a defendant or to any attorney of record or attorney engaged in the trial of the case;
https://law.justia.com/codes/colora...rocedure/article-10/part-1/section-16-10-103/

So what is everyone's thoughts on whether the relationship between juror M.B. and his son in law, who works at the trial prosecutor's office, constitutes a third degree relationship?

Personally, while the code seems to require the SIL be an attorney of record or otherwise "engaged in the trial" and I don't think anyone has accused the SIL of being either of those things, this juror never should have been in the jury pool to begin with and once the relationship was discovered and defense objected the juror should not have deliberated. JMO all of this mess we now see could easily have been avoided.

At the same time, the judge never ruled on their initial objection if I understand correctly, and so my question becomes, if I am a defense attorney, and I have objected to something that concerns me, and I never got a real ruling out of the judge about that concern, shouldn't I have pushed the matter and insisted on a ruling for the record, you know, in case I want to appeal it later?

 

[Jw192]

(1) The court shall sustain a challenge for cause on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) Absence of any qualification prescribed by statute to render a person competent as a juror;
(b) Relationship within the third degree, by blood, adoption, or marriage, to a defendant or to any attorney of record or attorney engaged in the trial of the case;
https://law.justia.com/codes/colora...rocedure/article-10/part-1/section-16-10-103/

So what is everyone's thoughts on whether the relationship between juror M.B. and his son in law, who works at the trial prosecutor's office, constitutes a third degree relationship?

Personally, while the code seems to require the SIL be an attorney of record or otherwise "engaged in the trial" and I don't think anyone has accused the SIL of being either of those things, this juror never should have been in the jury pool to begin with and once the relationship was discovered and defense objected the juror should not have deliberated. JMO all of this mess we now see could easily have been avoided.

At the same time, the judge never ruled on their initial objection if I understand correctly, and so my question becomes, if I am a defense attorney, and I have objected to something that concerns me, and I never got a real ruling out of the judge about that concern, shouldn't I have pushed the matter and insisted on a ruling for the record, you know, in case I want to appeal it later?

I don't think any appeal the state put in on the decision will be accepted. Third degree relationship or not, it was an easy solution when realised. Even if the juror was a cleaner in the prosecutors office, once it was raised, what harm would it have done that early on in proceedings to just be better safe than sorry? That juror was just one of many potential jurors, it wouldn't have made a shred of difference to the outcome in this case to just dismiss and I'm baffled as to why it didn't happen.
Yah, the defense didn't push it either and part of me believes that's down in a way to what I said in my above comment - they did what they "had to" but really didn't wanna be there. That is uncomfortable in its own way tbh.

Judge Werner is an amazing judge imo and he was super on the ball, so this is all just so perplexing.

What a mess

 

[Izzylizzy]

Judge Bernard, who concurred with his fellow judges on some of the case, also provided the only dissenting opinion that would have affirmed Stuach's convictions. Judge Bernard brought in the larger issue surrounding the question of peremptory challenges.

A peremptory challenge is the legal right in jury selection allowing attorneys to exclude several potential jurors without stating a reason.

Judge Bernard states that he recognized that Stauch used 7 of her 16 peremptory challenges available to remove other jurors, but deliberately choosing not to use any of them to remove Juror M.B. Bernard argued that this was a implied waiver of her right to raise the issue on appeal, and by allowing for defendants to "bank" a biased juror for appeal purposes creates a broader issue in the Colorado justice system.
Colorado woman convicted of killing her stepson granted a retrial, over juror issue

BBM:

Yet this says not so.

"During the trial, the court denied the defense's challenge to remove juror M.B., and the division of the court of appeals ruled this was a structural error, requiring the retrial."

​

 

[dkaras]

"Now, the court is granting a retrial, and Josh Tolini, Stauch’s defense attorney, is anticipating that they will likely argue Stauch is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Tolini spoke with FOX31 and said there were differing opinions of what mental health disorder Stauch had, but the state hospital said she had severe borderline personality disorder."

Also: "While Stauch’s conviction was reversed, she will remain in custody."

https://www.fox21news.com/news/letecia-stauch-expected-to-plead-insanity-in-retrial-for-11-year-old-stepsons-murder/

 

[Yellow Rose]

Also: "While Stauch’s conviction was reversed, she will remain in custody."

Should be bolded and underlined numerous times. Feel horrible for Gannon’s family.

 

[NoeticSoul]

"Now, the court is granting a retrial, and Josh Tolini, Stauch’s defense attorney, is anticipating that they will likely argue Stauch is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Tolini spoke with FOX31 and said there were differing opinions of what mental health disorder Stauch had, but the state hospital said she had severe borderline personality disorder."

Also: "While Stauch’s conviction was reversed, she will remain in custody."

https://www.fox21news.com/news/letecia-stauch-expected-to-plead-insanity-in-retrial-for-11-year-old-stepsons-murder/

BBM, Well at least that's something I'm beyond disgusted at this whole event. smh ETA, she's not insane just deranged. imo It won't fly.

 

[Jw192]

"Now, the court is granting a retrial, and Josh Tolini, Stauch’s defense attorney, is anticipating that they will likely argue Stauch is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Tolini spoke with FOX31 and said there were differing opinions of what mental health disorder Stauch had, but the state hospital said she had severe borderline personality disorder."

Also: "While Stauch’s conviction was reversed, she will remain in custody."

https://www.fox21news.com/news/letecia-stauch-expected-to-plead-insanity-in-retrial-for-11-year-old-stepsons-murder/

Ehhhhhh?! It's still Tolini?! What on earth!
We all remember the defense dramatic opening statement with Cook doing his flouncy fake walk out saying what's the point and telling the jury that he unfortunately isn't able to leave. We remember the defense closing with Tolini stating that NOBODY would ever do something as evil as what the prosecutions evidence shows that SHE DID and therefore the only explanation is that she MUST be insane... Like that was it, that was their defense, and they're sticking to that?! Wellll almost sticking - now the DID cosplay has been exposed they're going with BPD. Ok, they got some right, she is a walking cluster b monster and professionals both sides tagged BPD onto her in some way (I have my own personal opinions but heyho)... BPD however is a huge pee in the wind for a NGRI defense, even harder than pretending to have DID! Even if the defense have 10 forensic psychiatrists who diagnose her with BPD, that still isn't enough. BPD is a personality disorder and very very rarely successful for NGRI even in combination with another severe mental illness such as schizophrenia. There has to be a clear cut (and proven) history, evidence of severe psychosis and absolutely no indication that the defendant knew right from wrong - such as elaborate, purposeful and deceptive covering up of a crime! Anyways, I don't know what I'm even writing this and y'all know the ins and outs.

She's got two hopes here, bob hope and no hope. Especially with those two defense lawyers bless them, who I don't envy one bit having to still "work" with her and her poisonous mouth of lies.

 

[Tealgrove]

"Now, the court is granting a retrial, and Josh Tolini, Stauch’s defense attorney, is anticipating that they will likely argue Stauch is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Tolini spoke with FOX31 and said there were differing opinions of what mental health disorder Stauch had, but the state hospital said she had severe borderline personality disorder."

Also: "While Stauch’s conviction was reversed, she will remain in custody."

https://www.fox21news.com/news/letecia-stauch-expected-to-plead-insanity-in-retrial-for-11-year-old-stepsons-murder/

Well, that’s a personality disorder not mental
Illness.

I guess she’s all better now and doesn’t suffer from DID?

Are the vampires standing by?

Good Lord…here we go again.

Sick to my stomach.

 

[Seattle1]

(1) The court shall sustain a challenge for cause on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) Absence of any qualification prescribed by statute to render a person competent as a juror;
(b) Relationship within the third degree, by blood, adoption, or marriage, to a defendant or to any attorney of record or attorney engaged in the trial of the case;
https://law.justia.com/codes/colora...rocedure/article-10/part-1/section-16-10-103/

So what is everyone's thoughts on whether the relationship between juror M.B. and his son in law, who works at the trial prosecutor's office, constitutes a third degree relationship?

Personally, while the code seems to require the SIL be an attorney of record or otherwise "engaged in the trial" and I don't think anyone has accused the SIL of being either of those things, this juror never should have been in the jury pool to begin with and once the relationship was discovered and defense objected the juror should not have deliberated. JMO all of this mess we now see could easily have been avoided.

At the same time, the judge never ruled on their initial objection if I understand correctly, and so my question becomes, if I am a defense attorney, and I have objected to something that concerns me, and I never got a real ruling out of the judge about that concern, shouldn't I have pushed the matter and insisted on a ruling for the record, you know, in case I want to appeal it later?

^^bbm

There were 6 days of voir dire for this case, and although jury selection is not broadcast, it was available to us via the Court's Webex (audio only, mostly the attorneys and the Court audible).

From my personal notes, I can attest that this matter of Juror MB (with a son-in-law employed by the 4th Judicial District)-- came up late on the fourth day--or Friday, March 24, 2023 during questioning session by the Prosecution.

To be clear, potential Juror MB had previously disclosed this personal relationship on his juror questionnaire provided to the parties.

To my recollection, the defense did not initiate the objection to strike juror MB for cause during their questioning session of the candidates on March 24, 2023.

The defense objection to the potential juror MB was more in passing during questioning by the prosecution and Judge Werner late on Friday. (Judge Werner recalled MB's questionnaire). After it wasn't completely clear (audible) about the son-in-law's position, length of service, etc., Judge Werner agreed with the Prosecutor not to strike the juror for cause YET, and suggested the matter be carried over until Monday.

IMO, the Parties/Court either discussed off record, moved on, and/or forgot about the matter after the weekend, and as dissenting Judge Bernard concluded in his Opinion, defendant's combination of awareness and deliberate conduct was intentional, and an implied waiver of defendant’s right to challenge the trial court’s erroneous decision to deny her challenge for cause to Juror M.B. on appeal (i.e.,through her counsel, Stauch intentionally banked this juror for her successful appeal).

I've already posted upthread the multiple Defense Motions filed during voir dire where remaining silent on the matter of removing potential juror MB for cause and/or challenging the denial clearly emphasizes how this act was intentional by the defense-- as a means to "bank" a deliberating juror MB to be used for appeal. And it worked! MOO

ETA: I do not fault Judge Werner whatsoever for killer Stauch being granted a new trial pursuant to a "structural error." Instead, I believe Judge Werner was of a like mind of Judge Bernard.

IMO, Judge Gregory Werner's handling of LS trial was one of the only positives of this horrific case where he was fair and balanced to all parties-- including the defense's expert witness who just couldn't get the most minimal discovery filed!

The fact that defense counsel typed a expert's report on the eve of her testimony, which was overlooked by all, knowing action of lesser magnitude cost parties of another Colorado case sanctions, and added to the cause for disbarment, speaks volumes to Judge Werner honoring the "spirit of the discovery statutes."

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

I'll be updating in this sub-album:
(be sure to click in the circled i for info)

Photo Storage

Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!

app.photobucket.com

 

[kae27]

^^bbm

There were 6 days of voir dire for this case, and although jury selection is not broadcast, it was available to us via the Court's Webex (audio only, mostly the attorneys and the Court audible).

From my personal notes, I can attest that this matter of Juror MB (with a son-in-law employed by the 4th Judicial District)-- came up late on the fourth day--or Friday, March 24, 2023 during questioning session by the Prosecution.

To be clear, potential Juror MB had previously disclosed this personal relationship on his juror questionnaire provided to the parties.

To my recollection, the defense did not initiate the objection to strike juror MB for cause during their questioning session of the candidates on March 24, 2023.

The defense objection to the potential juror MB was more in passing during questioning by the prosecution and Judge Werner late on Friday. (Judge Werner recalled MB's questionnaire). After it wasn't completely clear (audible) about the son-in-law's position, length of service, etc., Judge Werner agreed with the Prosecutor not to strike the juror for cause YET, and suggested the matter be carried over until Monday.

IMO, the State either discussed off record, moved on, and/or forgot about the matter after the weekend, and as dissenting Judge Bernard concluded in his Opinion, defendant's combination of awareness and deliberate conduct was intentional, and an implied waiver of defendant’s right to challenge the trial court’s erroneous decision to deny her challenge for cause to Juror M.B. on appeal (i.e.,through her counsel, Stauch intentionally banked this juror for her successful appeal).

I've already posted upthread the multiple Defense Motions filed during voir dire where remaining silent on the matter of removing potential juror MB for cause and/or challenging the denial clearly emphasizes how this act was intentional by the defense-- as a means to "bank" a deliberating juror MB to be used for appeal. And it worked! MOO

Thank you so much for all of this background and information. Really helpful in making me understand (though not approve of!) what happened.

 

[wendybtn]

Can this case not be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court by the prosecutor's office?

 

[Seattle1]

Can this case not be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court by the prosecutor's office?

Yes, but the appeal has to come from the Attorney General's office--not the DA/Prosecutor's office.