The Manzanares muddle

Explanation by court brass leaves much to be desired

Published March 9, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

As far as we knew, the Office of the State Court Administrator devoted itself entirely to administering state courts. It handles payroll, budget, computer coordination, long-range planning, probation services, lobbying the legislature for money - the boring basics.

We had no idea that it might also try to directly intervene in the pursuit - or is it obstruction? - of justice. At least when one of its own is under suspicion.

It turns out that Carol Haller, the office's legal counsel, asked police not to prosecute former Denver District Judge Larry Manzanares after she and State Court Administrator Gerald Marroney had been told that a missing court laptop had turned up in Manzanares' home.

Haller's statement, written Feb. 20 on a Denver Police Department form, said that after reviewing police reports and discussing the issue with Marroney, "the \[judicial] branch position is to ask that no prosecution take place at this time."

Although Manzanares isn't mentioned by name in the note, Marroney and his immediate superior, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, conceded in a joint statement issued Thursday that the office had been informed of Manzanares' link to the case on Feb. 15, five days earlier.

Their statement raises far more questions than it answers. Such as:

• Do state court administrators usually argue against prosecution in possible thefts of comparable magnitude from their own offices? If so, why? Doesn't the public expect the courts, of all institutions, to pursue punishment for lawbreakers?

• On the other hand, if the administrator's position favoring no prosecution in this case was unusual, doesn't it amount to special treatment for Manzanares - treatment that Mullarkey and Marroney specifically deny?

• Their statement refers twice to the desire of the administrator's office to analyze data on the computer before deciding whether to support prosecution. Why? What was the relevance of such an analysis to a decision to prosecute? After all, Mullarkey and Marroney acknowledge they had no concern that "confidential information about court users had been compromised." If that's so, why wasn't the decision on whether to recommend prosecution based on whether a stolen computer is in and of itself serious enough to warrant charges? Why the hand-wringing about the computer's contents?

• Why were the state courts intent on running an investigation parallel to the police and district attorney's? That's what Thursday's statement implies the administrator's office at least hoped to do. Is such a probe undertaken in every theft from court offices? Or is it only done when a theft might have been committed by a prominent former employee?

• What did Mullarkey know about this case, and when did she know it? A press spokesman for the state court administrator, Rob McCallum, told a Rocky reporter Thursday that Mullarkey had been "briefed" on the case, but could not say when or to what extent. He did say "she never gave any directives." OK, but did she offer any advice? A former district judge was potentially in bigtime trouble, after all; surely that was a matter of keen concern to her, as would be any matter affecting the reputation of the courts.

Incredibly, the court administrator's advice to the police almost quashed the case. An unidentified deputy Denver district attorney recommended no prosecution based on Haller's note, but was overruled by her bosses. They had the good sense not to let their decisions be based on recommendations by court administrators.

The DA's office turned the case over to a special prosecutor in Jefferson County to avoid the suggestion of conflict of interest.

Manzanares, who had been named Denver city attorney Nov. 30, returned the laptop Feb. 16. He told reporter Tony Kovaleski of Denver's 7 that he had bought the computer from someone in a parking lot. He was put on "investigatory" leave by Mayor John Hickenlooper Feb. 23 and resigned four days later.

The theft of a laptop may not be a big deal under normal circumstances. But the court administrator's intervention to urge no prosecution against a former judge certainly is a major concern. And in trying to offer an explanation for it Thursday, top court officials have left matters more confused than ever.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News