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

[Seattle1]

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.

^^rsbm

This was one of the most horrific trials I've ever observed, and I don't think LS could have had a better Judge presiding over her case than Judge Gregory Werner. I don't see the allegation by the defense getting past Judge Werner. Not today LS. Don't pass go. Stay on your cold bunk.... forever. JMO

 

[Megnut]

Am I missing something? It didn't even sound like it's been established whether this individual fit within the third degree. Family trees can get branchy. And in-law of an in-law could put one out there quite a ways out in a limb. Could be a juror's child's spouse. But could also be the spouse of a stepchild, the stepchild from a current or former relationship. Someone with whom the juror had zero contact.

I think this will fall to strategy. The Defense didn't pursue a strike out which then IMO is akin to endorsement.

Interesting but not probative.

Verdict will stand.

JMO

 

[musicaljoke]

Am I missing something? It didn't even sound like it's been established whether this individual fit within the third degree. Family trees can get branchy. And in-law of an in-law could put one out there quite a ways out in a limb. Could be a juror's child's spouse. But could also be the spouse of a stepchild, the stepchild from a current or former relationship. Someone with whom the juror had zero contact.

I think this will fall to strategy. The Defense didn't pursue a strike out which then IMO is akin to endorsement.

Interesting but not probative.

Verdict will stand.

JMO

From the article, it seems that the defence did challenge the juror. Whose responsibility is it to remove a potential juror? It seems in this situation the defence is blaming the judge.

I've been called to serve on a jury a few times. The selection process always began with the judge asking anyone who knows the defendant or court officials to excuse themselves. ( I've never heard anyone mention "third degree". )

"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."

I certainly hope that this is just a frivolous attempt to have the charges withdrawn and that it will be denied. But I am not sure whether it is frivolous or a serious breach of justice.

 

[heartandsoul]

This vile creature will continue to cause pain and hurt for that sweet boys family for as long as she lives. May she fail every time.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

The video from court is still up, per watergirl62's link.

idk if this one will work, but I just searched "Stauch"

Appellate Courts Live Broadcast | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.coloradojudicial.gov

 

[Rolypolyoly]

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 agree, feels like they filed that under " Get out of jail free" for later.

*I know she wont actually get out of jail, even if they grant an appeal.