GUILTY CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, found deceased, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #70

[ChatteringBirds]

Hopefully this goes nowhere. It's not as if the evidence wasn't overwhelming. And every single other juror also voted to convict.

 

[katydid23]

That would be El Paso County in Colorado....

....DOH......of course...

 

[Mo Thuairim]

.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Megnut, THANK YOU!! for that link to watch the appeallate court!
I like visuals. Words are ok, but the pictures make it stay in my memory.
Pics below:
For Letitia, Eric Samler.
For the State, Kathy Gillespie.

So... hoping that this will be a quick "OH HELL NO!" from the judges... but knowing it could be reversed,
I started a new sub-album in the Gannon Stauch Case Archives.
And it it's a no, as I hope/we all hope, I will just add the pics to the trial section.

Hoping the link works for everyone.
Click on the circled i for a detailed description.

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

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Eric Sandler---prior connection with DAs--- one of the jurors had connection by marriage with a DA?


Sandler's Defense Appellate argument —RE: a juror has a connection to one of the DA’s through a marriage.

Appellate Eric Samler—let’s agree that if a juror has a connection by marriage to an attorney on the case the court must sustain a challenge to that juror[@ 14:42][

[apparently a juror had a son-in-law who was an El Paso DA, who did not appear in court, but El Paso was connected somehow I guess?]

[apparently the defense tried to reject this juror but it was denied? ]

The prosecution seems to be saying that the defense never actually formally asked for a WAIVER ?--- They brought it up once in court---judge said they wanted to think about it further, and apparently the defense did not bring it up again to ask specifically for a waiver on that juror?

There is also a question in prosecution's mind--did the defense want to leave that juror on the case so they could have an argument for reversal of conviction if necessary

The defense said that was ridiculous, no way would defense do that^^^^

This appellate judge was asking questions to both sides about that situation---

So the appellate attorney for defense wants a REVERSAL of the Conviction because the trial judge did not kick the alternate juror out of the court because his son in law was a DA in El Paso Texas?

Alternate juror? So was this juror dismissed before deliberations? I dont see Judge Werner making this kind of mistake, he gave the defence all the leeway in the world at every step of the case.

 

[katydid23]

Alternate juror? So was this juror dismissed before deliberations? I dont see Judge Werner making this kind of mistake, he gave the defence all the leeway in the world at every step of the case.

 

[katydid23]

Alternate juror? So was this juror dismissed before deliberations? I dont see Judge Werner making this kind of mistake, he gave the defence all the leeway in the world at every step of the case.

The defense is throwing Judge Werner under the bus----saying an alternate juror was added to the jury after a woman was thrown off because she knew one of the expert witnesses.

But there is now a big fight between the defense appellate team and the prosecutions, because the new juror had a son in law who worked in the DA's office.

Here is a transcript of their argument:

Appellate argument 1—RE: a juror has a connection to an employee in the DA’s office, through a marriage

Appellate Courts Live Broadcast | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.coloradojudicial.gov

Appellate Eric Samler—let’s agree that if a juror has a connection by marriage to an attorney on the case the court must sustain a challenge to that juror[14;42][
[apparently a juror had a son-in-law who was an El Paso DA, who did not appear in court]

Judge: [One of the judges breaks in here—and says to Samler]—
“Your position is there is no waiver because all of the challenges were made….why is that sir? “

Samler replied—“ let me go back—because I don’t think that’s a waiver argument—I think that’s a preservation argument in disguise…
Waiver would mean you waived your challenge to the juror—that didn’t happen—The challenge was made a challenge for cause was made because of the relationship between a juror and one of the district attorneys…”

Judge: If I understand the Attorney General’s argument accurately, they’re saying there’s still a waiver because the defense had the opportunity to remove this juror with a preemptory challenge and didn’t choose to do so…That’s the part of the Waiver Argument I want to focus on…

Samler: Okay but that’s not the law…that’s not what’s said in Abu El and as Justice Gabriel pointed out , the people that have within their right to use their preemptories to make that—the legislature has made the choice that a certain group of jurors are impliedly biased, Okay…And that impliedly biased jurors should not serve as long as the challenge to that juror is made.That’s what the Abu El statute says…the challenge was made…

Judge: But we do have Justice Moore’s dissent, and he would say there was a waiver because that challenge wasn’t made…Am I misreading his dissent?

Samler…You’re not misreading what Justice Moore said but that’s the dissent…

Judge: …that’s correct,

Samler: that’s the dissent, that’s where we are…and if the Supreme Court wants to revisit the issue So be it…but the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue and the Supreme Court has made clear that —and I’d like to take it one step further—if that is the rule and we already have with nivatti that the Automatic Reversal Rule doesn’t apply— if you take away that and say you have to use preemptories, it makes the challenge for cause basically non reviewable Because if you don’t get rid of that juror, you can’t challenge it…So there…I’m sorry your Honor..

Female Judge1: No no no….don’t apologise…I’m interrupting you before you get too far afield, I’m stuck on that part…so you know I understand how do we reconcile that that you know defense counsel is entitled to to use their preemptories but they’re not entitled to use pre-emptories so that they can like create the jury that they want, right? They’re entitled to use it to get rid of biased jurors…and so here we have a cause and counsel knows the jury’s biased makes the challenge—how do we reconcile that?

Samler: I mean I think you’re putting it on well , defense counsel must have made this choice, So set something up for appeal that’s not…necessarily so…and I don’t know what’s going through trial counsels mind, but I know with any trial counsel, with anybody who’s tried a case, so maybe this juror is the lesser of 2 evils as far as who I want to challenge…I would rather have this juror even if that juror is impliedly biased…then juror number A

Judge 1:So isn’t that the argument that what the argument around—so I’ve made an intentional choice to waive my challenge on this juror…?

Samler: No, I don’t think it is…because then he would have had one more preemptory and I realise under Navaiitny that’s not the argument if the juror doesn’t sit and moreover, we have to look at what happened here too…the juror wasn’t on original 12, he was an alternate…

Judge 1: So I think it’s the Navatni case where the majority says where like look, we don’t really need to decide whether or not we can get in counsel’s head about whether there’s a choice and something about a waiver but that wasn’t really argued so we’re not …
In Navattni they kind of sidestep the issue , and here we have it before us…so what if anything are we restricted by and what leeway do we have to address?

Samler: I think think quite frankly tin Abu Al, that’s the law and I don’t think they ta;know about waiver there but Justice Gabriel flat out said the district attorney has preemptory challenges too and if the DA thinks that’s problematic then perhaps the DA should use that challenge..
But everyone knew here, what the challenge was and what the challenge being made , the challenge was because of the relationship. The fact that the DA was not aware of a case over 30 years old was not the fault of the defendant—He raised the challenge. He did not want that juror there because his son-in-law is working for the same DA that is trying this case…

Judge 2: Counsel, let me ask you another question that gets to the waiver/preservation issue——I struggled with where the trial court definitively ruled on this because the court says “ Well let me think on this over the weekend and um my recollection is a prosecutor said ‘well you could bring the juror back up and ask some more questions which the court did and then the court just says “Okay, these jurors come back the next day. Was it on the, why wasn’t it on the defense counsel to bring it back up on the next court day?

Samler: I don’t know of the rule, once you’re ruled against that says you have to re…

Judge 2: Was it really a ruling? Where?

Samler: Yes, there was a ruling because at the end of that day he renewed his challenge to that juror..

Judge—Ok , and the court just said, Ok thank You Counsel…

Samler…No no, But what the court said when they were discussing this the defense said “ his son-in-law works for the DA, and the prosecutor said in no uncertain terms he hasn’t said anything else that makes that problematic and I don’t think that being the status of the juror rises to a statutory challenge…

Judge 2: so you think that was the rejection of the statutory challenge?

Samler—yes, exactly because the court said I agree and I haven’t heard anything else. I don’t know what more has to be done…

@12:00: [prosecutions points}
Cathy Gillespie: Preservation/Waiver issues—courts seem to avoid these issues---I will go through what happened in this case with the waivers...

{ I think she did a good job explaining some things Samler was trying to avoid----like how the defense had a few opportunities to challenge the juror again, at the time the the female juror was being questioned about knowing one of the expert witnesses-----and the defense KNEW that this alternate juror would be sliding onto the jury if the other juror is rejected----but he did not try to avoid that from happening by asking the judge to choose a different alternate and reject this witness----he had two opportunities to do so]