Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #43

[Seattle1]

For any who are interested, I took some time to show why I believe that if there was anything good for the defendant in the autopsy report, they'd be in court in a minute, asking for bond:

1. Capital cases (first degree murder) in Colorado are subject to no bond when proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great.

The Colorado Constitution provides that all defendants have the right to a bail bond, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great: Colo. Const. art. II, § 19(1)(a) (“All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except ․ [f]or capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption is great.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.

Article II, Bill of Rights (By the way, this is an appeal of an order setting bond conditions in another Colorado family annihilator case – that of Michael Blagg).​

That is a super high burden to meet. Vastly higher than probable cause.

“The mere fact that an information has been filed–or for that matter that the defendant has been bound over for trial—is not equivalent to a determination that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Orona v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 55, 58, 518 P.2d 839, 840 (1974)​

2. Any defendant, even those charged with first degree murder, may file a motion seeking bail. They must request it in writing and then a hearing has to take place.

“In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

3. At a bail hearing, if the state objects to bail, they have the burden of proof of showing that proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great. FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


4. A defendant may request a hearing to change the terms of the bond, or to request bond, when there has been a change of circumstances in the case.

“After setting a new bond hearing, but before that hearing occurred, the court reinstated the $500,000 cash or surety bond it had set before Blagg's first trial.   Because the trial court dispensed with the hearing, neither party had the chance to argue changed circumstances and the alleged victim's family did not have the opportunity to be heard.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

5. Although rare, judges may reverse the no bond decision, and grant bond and release defendants charged with first degree murder, pending trial, when evidence emerges showing the case is weak.

(These are examples from North Carolina. As it is rare to find such cases, I went outside the state of Colorado. There is zero, however, to suggest, that this would not occur in Colorado if a case was suddenly proved weak due to exculpatory evidence.)​

DURHAM
In two weeks, five people charged with murder in Durham signed paperwork and walked out of the Durham County jail.
The five men had spent from 144 to 936 days within the white-brick detention center downtown. They remain charged with killing five men ages 22 to 42.
Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson unsecured the men’s bonds after hearings in January outlining evidence in what he called weak cases. An unsecured bond requires a signature promising to pay an amount of money if the defendant fails to return to court.
The attorney for one of the men said surveillance video proves her client has an alibi. Another said his client was defending himself against a man trying to rob him. Other cases had evidence or eyewitness testimony that raised concerns.A judge let 5 men charged with murder out of jail. Here’s what happened​

In this case, I believe that of there was one damn thing that was exculpatory in those autopsy results, the defense would be jumping to request bond. And I believe that's so even if they didn't think they would get it, because it would be a quick way to get facts they feel are "good" for the defendant, released to the public, via a bond motion.

Good stuff. Really appreciate your courtesy! And when a defendant is released on bail, I image there's no keeping a visitor log either. The way I see it, nobody would choose jail given a legal chance out, nobody.

 

[gitana1]

Honestly - I am not at all sure I would want to be out if I was in his shoes. Unforunately, I think he’s safest where he is.

That's an argument I have only ever seen the prosecution make. In order to have bond denied.

Except an episode of I Love Lucy I have not heard of one case in the United States in which a defendant willfully gave up the right to bond because he or she felt it was "safer" in jail!

 

[Amandaaa]

That's an argument I have only ever seen the prosecution make. In order to have bond denied.

Except an episode of I Love Lucy I have not heard of one case in the United States in which a defendant willfully gave up the right to bond because he or she felt it was "safer" in jail!

What can I say... I guess I don’t always think conventionally

 

[tmar]

During our "hiatus" I did a little searching on sealed pleadings with HIPAA information, and it made me wonder why they wouldn't just redact the HIPAA information. It seems that's the way it's handled many times.
Sorry, I can't find the source for this now, so just my opinion and wondering if any of the legal minds think it might turn out that way?

Welcome Mazey.
Your first post, and you worked during our 'break', trying to obtain info.
Thank you.

 

[MyBelle]

Honestly - I am not at all sure I would want to be out if I was in his shoes. Unforunately, I think he’s safest where he is.

The risk of vigilante justice is too high, imo. Would the Judge even consider a bond motion prior to the decision on sealing the autopsy reports?

 

[Amandaaa]

Of course. I'm not meaning to offend you. I know you're aware of the definition. Which is why I wrote "as you know".

Could you give an example of something you think could be good for the defense, in the autopsy report, but that would not tend to exonerate him? Anything. Anything at all.

Further, if the defense fails to bring a motion for admission to bail, I trust you would logically conclude that there is zero in the autopsy report that would change the great presumption of guilt in this case or the evident proof of guilt?

Because obviously if there was any such thing, the defense would be hot footing it to a bond hearing.

1) it is nearly impossible to offend me - and you haven’t even come close

2) we are getting far afield from the original post - where I said I thought there may be something good for the defense in the reports - you (or someone else, maybe, I’ve lost track now) mentioned something about them requesting a new hearing if that was the case.

My point is that there’s a lot of grey in between - something can still be viewed as “good for the defense”, but not warrant/support a new hearing

 

[Owutatangledweb]

Pre-2019 alimony arrangements are not affected by the new code.

Starting 2019,
-Alimony payers don't get tax deduction.
-Alimony recipients don't need to pay taxes.
So it's a wash.

In general, alimony payments will get smaller in amount. (but the net amount will be the same)

No need to murder your divorcing spouse.

They are now taxing the higher income earner who is normally in a higher tax bracket. More money for the government= less net income for the divorcing couple.

 

[Seattle1]

The risk of vigilante justice is too high, imo. Would the Judge even consider a bond motion prior to the decision on sealing the autopsy reports?

You forget. The court, defense, and the State have all seen the autopsy reports. Disclosure's only been withheld from the public.

 

[Owutatangledweb]

They can want to keep him locked up all they want, it all depends on what the defendant wants.

And I highly doubt CW wants to spend two years in jail awaiting trial. No one wants that.

County jails are generally better than prisons; better to get time credited there than do more of the time in prison.

 

[MassGuy]

County jails are generally better than prisons; better to get time credited there than do more of the time in prison.

Absolutely, but he’s not going to prison until after trial.

If you’re in jail, you want to get out. That is especially true when you are looking at a potential life sentence or death, if convicted.

 

[Seattle1]

1) it is nearly impossible to offend me - and you haven’t even come close

2) we are getting far afield from the original post - where I said I thought there may be something good for the defense in the reports - you (or someone else, maybe, I’ve lost track now) mentioned something about them requesting a new hearing if that was the case.

My point is that there’s a lot of grey in between - something can still be viewed as “good for the defense”, but not warrant/support a new hearing

Respectfully, like what in these autopsy reports do you think could be viewed good for CW and his defense, (but not warrant an attempt to get him released on bail)? I think we've had a long hiatus, and eager to learn!! TIA

 

[Thepoet]

For any who are interested, I took some time to show why I believe that if there was anything good for the defendant in the autopsy report, they'd be in court in a minute, asking for bond:

1. Capital cases (first degree murder) in Colorado are subject to no bond when proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great.

The Colorado Constitution provides that all defendants have the right to a bail bond, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great: Colo. Const. art. II, § 19(1)(a) (“All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except ․ [f]or capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption is great.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.

Article II, Bill of Rights (By the way, this is an appeal of an order setting bond conditions in another Colorado family annihilator case – that of Michael Blagg).​

That is a super high burden to meet. Vastly higher than probable cause.

“The mere fact that an information has been filed–or for that matter that the defendant has been bound over for trial—is not equivalent to a determination that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Orona v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 55, 58, 518 P.2d 839, 840 (1974)​

2. Any defendant, even those charged with first degree murder, may file a motion seeking bail. They must request it in writing and then a hearing has to take place.

“In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

3. At a bail hearing, if the state objects to bail, they have the burden of proof of showing that proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great. FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


4. A defendant may request a hearing to change the terms of the bond, or to request bond, when there has been a change of circumstances in the case.

“After setting a new bond hearing, but before that hearing occurred, the court reinstated the $500,000 cash or surety bond it had set before Blagg's first trial.   Because the trial court dispensed with the hearing, neither party had the chance to argue changed circumstances and the alleged victim's family did not have the opportunity to be heard.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

5. Although rare, judges may reverse the no bond decision, and grant bond and release defendants charged with first degree murder, pending trial, when evidence emerges showing the case is weak.

(These are examples from North Carolina. As it is rare to find such cases, I went outside the state of Colorado. There is zero, however, to suggest, that this would not occur in Colorado if a case was suddenly proved weak due to exculpatory evidence.)​

DURHAM
In two weeks, five people charged with murder in Durham signed paperwork and walked out of the Durham County jail.
The five men had spent from 144 to 936 days within the white-brick detention center downtown. They remain charged with killing five men ages 22 to 42.
Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson unsecured the men’s bonds after hearings in January outlining evidence in what he called weak cases. An unsecured bond requires a signature promising to pay an amount of money if the defendant fails to return to court.
The attorney for one of the men said surveillance video proves her client has an alibi. Another said his client was defending himself against a man trying to rob him. Other cases had evidence or eyewitness testimony that raised concerns.A judge let 5 men charged with murder out of jail. Here’s what happened​

In this case, I believe that of there was one damn thing that was exculpatory in those autopsy results, the defense would be jumping to request bond. And I believe that's so even if they didn't think they would get it, because it would be a quick way to get facts they feel are "good" for the defendant, released to the public, via a bond motion.

Great information! Thanks so much, kudos!

 

[gitana1]

1) it is nearly impossible to offend me - and you haven’t even come close

2) we are getting far afield from the original post - where I said I thought there may be something good for the defense in the reports - you (or someone else, maybe, I’ve lost track now) mentioned something about them requesting a new hearing if that was the case.

My point is that there’s a lot of grey in between - something can still be viewed as “good for the defense”, but not warrant/support a new hearing

Like what?

 

[gitana1]

Pre-2019 alimony arrangements are not affected by the new code.

Starting 2019,
-Alimony payers don't get tax deduction.
-Alimony recipients don't need to pay taxes.
So it's a wash.

In general, alimony payments will get smaller in amount. (but the net amount will be the same)

No need to murder your divorcing spouse.

One would think.

Let me just say that it's caused a lot of issues. How much smaller should they be? That's what the judges I'm encountering are grappling with.

But it does skew things as the person paying makes more money but can't deduct. So it may not be a wash.

 

[gitana1]

They can want to keep him locked up all they want, it all depends on what the defendant wants.

And I highly doubt CW wants to spend two years in jail awaiting trial. No one wants that.

Of course not. It just seems like a stretch.

 

[Amandaaa]

Like what?

Practically anything - use your imagination. And I’m being completely serious, and not at all sarcastic.

I don’t want to get into specific examples (though I have quite a few in mind) because, quite honestly, I don’t want to get the least bit involved in the “C.W. vs SW” discussion... and some of my examples (which are possible, but not necessarily probable) may rub people the wrong way. Suffice it to say that I could name quite a few things that would be helpful to the defense, but not result in a new hearing.

I totally understand why emotions are flying high on this board - but while I don’t mind speaking generically in terms of theories or analysis of legal proceedings, I am just not comfortable going any deeper than that. This board is already so divided and I don’t want to contribute to that any further. I hope you will understand.

 

[MyBelle]

You forget. The court, defense, and the State have all seen the autopsy reports. Disclosure's only been withheld from the public.

My question was about the legal process because of the already filed motion to seal in civil court.

 

[NuttMegg]

As long as a few legal minds are here...
If CW wanted to recant his confession, at what point would/could that occur. At trial, before trial, any time? What would be the methodology? Would it be a simple filing with the court? If he were to recant, would he have to recant it in totality?

 

[Thepoet]

It seems to me, if there was anything remotely positive for the defense, they would want to get it into the light of day. I would guess by requesting a hearing. Wouldn't something positive be better than silence and people thinking the worst? Given the current momentum of events I have to believe that the autopsy results will be released and will answer some questions. Until then, I guess the silence will remain deafening.

 

[MyBelle]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>
You make an interesting point. This link shows at least one Colorado juror shares your opinion about things favorable to the defense and the weight of them. I'm not familiar with the case he refers to but you probably are:

Becker said he changed his mind on capital punishment after serving on the Edward Montour death penalty case in Douglas County.

"I walked away angry, I walked away disappointed in our judicial system," he said. "I felt the death penalty is not justice. It's vengeance and vengeance doesn't belong in our courts."

Becker's time on a death penalty jury came to an abrupt and emotional end after the judge let the defense present evidence sympathetic to the defendant. Evidence Becker believes should have come to light long before he was asked to potentially put a man to death. Evidence so strong, the prosecution ended up taking the death penalty off the table.

Should Chris Watts face the death penalty? A look at capital punishment in Colorado