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]

 

[Rolypolyoly]

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]

Thankyou!

It doesnt feel from the language that they will rule in her favour, but it is a worry. Again though, Judge Werner was so thorough, and he made sure to check anything he was certain of at every stage, so I feel like he genuinely didnt find an issue with this juror, he did everything he could to give the defence grace and avoid an appeal, so he must have believed this juror was fine to sit?

 

[Suspish]

Ughhh, hoping against hope that this gets rejected post haste, i’m cautiously optimistic but my soul won’t settle til she’s firmly back in her “palatial quarters”

Strength and prayers to Gannon’s father and family. Their hearts must be constantly in their mouths.

That beast doesn’t deserve one second of freedom or a comfortable life.

Moo, imo

 

[Megnut]

Ughhh, hoping against hope that this gets rejected post haste, i’m cautiously optimistic but my soul won’t settle til she’s firmly back in her “palatial quarters”

Strength and prayers to Gannon’s father and family. Their hearts must be constantly in their mouths.

That beast doesn’t deserve one second of freedom or a comfortable life.

Moo, imo

She didn't appear in person iiuc.

She's still locked up where she'll be until one sad pine box gets a job it doesn't deserve.

Poor box.

JMO

 

[musicaljoke]

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.

This alternate juror was called to take a seat on the jury when one of the others stepped aside. So this juror was present and part of the jury during deliberations.

It shouldn't matter who made the mistake, whether the judge or the defence attorney. Perhaps it was both of them. I hate to think that the vile creature could be granted another trial. However, no accused person should have someone on their jury who has family working in the DA's office. It seems like a WTH thing that undermines the credibility of the justice system.

 

[katydid23]

This alternate juror was called to take a seat on the jury when one of the others stepped aside. So this juror was present and part of the jury during deliberations.

yes.

It shouldn't matter who made the mistake, whether the judge or the defence attorney. Perhaps it was both of them.

I don't think it was a 'mistake' by the Defense Attorney. The prosecution is saying that it was intentional by the defense----a loophole they purposely set up, so they could reverse the verdict in case they lost the case.

Now they can retry it, after learning all about the state's full case, and now getting a second chance.

The defence had every opportunity to challenge this juror---there is a process they had to follow and they did not do so. State says they did not do so intentionally. They made the challenge first, and the judge said let's interview the juror to get verification of the situation, which they did---after which the defense needed to strike the juror. But they did not do so. Now months later they are saying the judge should have done so on his own. But that is not what the judge expected--he was expecting the defense to make a formal challenge, apparently. Except that didn't happen---and now the defense magically has the reversal option at hand. Was that the plan all along?

I hate to think that the vile creature could be granted another trial. However, no accused person should have someone on their jury who has family working in the DA's office. It seems like a WTH thing that undermines the credibility of the justice system.

The Justice System has a protocol to deal with that situation----and the court and both sides discussed the situation----and the defense did not follow through with their part in it which would have kicked the juror out--but surprisingly they did not take that final step. I think they set it up that way on purpose. IMO

 

[Seattle1]

@Seattle1 - I tried the link you provided up thread - but can not figure out "how" to find her case. You know, like the one for Morphew's filings? If there is one for Stauch? TIA if you can help me - just wondering if there is a next court date - or we wait... for judges' decision?

This case is in the State Court of Appeals, and not readily searchable by the public like the District Court hearings (i.e, Morphew).

Similar to Troconis (appellate court decision we are waiting on), when the panel makes a decision, the "opinion" will either be published or non-published, and that's how/when we will learn the basis for their decision.

IMO, the media will alert us quickly-- just as they did on the Oral Argument (long before I found it on the published January 2026 calendar below)!

Nonetheless, please note the case number and oral argument date below for your notes.

https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/COA%20Docket%20January%202026.pdf

Division VII
PAWAR JOHNSON GOMEZ
Lawclerk Pawar
Court of Appeals Courtroom 3rd Floor

Date: January 27, 2026

Time/ Short Case/ Case Caption

9:00 AM/ 2023CA1067/ Peo v Stauch, L

Court of Appeals | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.coloradojudicial.gov

*The oral argument video (heard 1/27/26) has not populated the archives yet.

ETA: found another link to use with case#

Find Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado

 

[Seattle1]

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?

@katydid23 -- big thanks for taking one for the team and providing your notes! IMO, LS has been planning on this one since her conviction!

ETA: Appears that her oral argument has already been pulled from the 1/27/26 archive! I know that her appeal was previously marked "suppressed" on the docket, and details only available to the case parties.

 

[Seattle1]

Unfortunately, it appears that Colorado's archived videos of oral arguments heard at "Court of Appeals 3rd Floor" linked below stopped after 5/13/2024!

This is really most unfortunate because this archive linked directly to a Youtube video that could be shared. Although it still works, my apologies to anybody I shared the archive with if you are searching for more recent appellate oral arguments.

Colorado Judicial Branch | Live and Archived Meetings

cojudicial.ompnetwork.org

 

[Niner]

Nonetheless, please note the case number and oral argument date below for your notes.

Noted!

 

[watergirl62]

The live stream is up. I think the appeal will be denied.

Appellate Courts Live Broadcast | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.coloradojudicial.gov

Unfortunately, it appears that Colorado's archived videos of oral arguments heard at "Court of Appeals 3rd Floor" linked below stopped after 5/13/2024!

This is really most unfortunate because this archive linked directly to a Youtube video that could be shared. Although it still works, my apologies to anybody I shared the archive with if you are searching for more recent appellate oral arguments.

Colorado Judicial Branch | Live and Archived Meetings

cojudicial.ompnetwork.org

No worries, I linked it previously. Just scroll down a bit to find the video.

 

[Seattle1]

No worries, I linked it previously. Just scroll down a bit to find the video.

Thanks @watergirl62

I saw the oral argument populate at the link on Saturday-- with a few others heard on 1/27/26-- but it's now gone while the others from 1/27/26 remain. I believe LS's appeal details are suppressed, and the mp4 video previously available taken down.

(I see two old "Cases of Interest," and four arguments from 1/27/26 under "Recent Cases," excluding 23CA1067 People v Stauch, L).

 

[watergirl62]

Oh no! So we must wait.

I thought the defense arguments were over reaching and the court addressed the issue to its satisfaction at the time. Shrug.

 

[musicaljoke]

yes.

I don't think it was a 'mistake' by the Defense Attorney. The prosecution is saying that it was intentional by the defense----a loophole they purposely set up, so they could reverse the verdict in case they lost the case.

Now they can retry it, after learning all about the state's full case, and now getting a second chance.

The defence had every opportunity to challenge this juror---there is a process they had to follow and they did not do so. State says they did not do so intentionally. They made the challenge first, and the judge said let's interview the juror to get verification of the situation, which they did---after which the defense needed to strike the juror. But they did not do so. Now months later they are saying the judge should have done so on his own. But that is not what the judge expected--he was expecting the defense to make a formal challenge, apparently. Except that didn't happen---and now the defense magically has the reversal option at hand. Was that the plan all along?

The Justice System has a protocol to deal with that situation----and the court and both sides discussed the situation----and the defense did not follow through with their part in it which would have kicked the juror out--but surprisingly they did not take that final step. I think they set it up that way on purpose. IMO

I'm not completely convinced that it was deliberate on the part of the defence in order to have a reason for an appeal. What happened seems foggier than that.

"Samler [ Leticia's lawyer] told the appeals judges that a juror connected to Letecia’s trial had a son-in-law who worked for District Attorney Michael Allen’s office. Allen was the lead prosecutor in the case. Samler argued that Letecia’s defense team challenged the jurors’ family ties during the jury selection process. Despite the challenge, Samler told the appeals court that the trial judge did not get rid of the juror. In a court briefing, Samler argued, “This is structural error requiring reversal of the convictions.”

Senior Assistant Attorney General Katharine Gillespie told the court that she does not think the trial judge even made an official ruling on the challenge. She also argued that Letecia didn’t properly challenge the juror under a specific subsection of the law.

“Because defendant (Letecia) didn’t challenge MB (the juror) under (1)(b), she didn’t address whether MB’s son-in-law met the family ‘within the third degree’ requirement, and she didn’t correct the court’s misunderstanding as to her challenge, the trial court wasn’t on notice that this question needed to be resolved,” Gillespie stated in a brief filed in the court of appeals ahead of Tuesday’s oral arguments.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/attorney-argues-letecia-stauchs-conviction-should-be-reversed-in-colorado-court-of-appeals/