Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

A volatile DA

Chambers' penchant for controversy

Published May 7, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

It's not good when a district attorney is the focus of controversy more often than the cases he or she may be prosecuting.

And there's no question that Carol Chambers, chief prosecutor for the district covering Arapahoe and three other suburban counties, frequently turns herself into a lightning rod, embroiling herself in needless trouble.

Most recently she has been accused of trying to intimidate a judge, a charge that will be investigated by the Colorado Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Counsel.

It's the second time in less than a year that she's drawn the attention of the ARC. Last December it publicly censured her for abusing her office to help out an acquaintance.

Chambers was never expected to win her job. She upset Eva Wilson in the 2004 Republican primary, although Wilson boasted a wide array of endorsements (including this newspaper's). Almost immediately Chambers made headlines by threatening to fire any deputy DAs who spread rumors about her during the primary.

After cruising to victory in November in the heavily GOP district, she complained publicly about the salary awarded to her by the county commissioners in the district. She said she deserved more. Not long after assuming office she was in the news again, this time for indicating she would not prosecute any cases involving a police officer whom she regarded as untrustworthy.

Now James O'Connor, head of the public defender's office in the district, has alleged that Chambers made "a blatant attempt to intimidate" Valeria Spencer, a judge in the district. What Chambers had done is warn the chief judge and district administrator in an e-mail that if any judge "shows overt hostility" to her deputy prosecutors, "there absolutely will be docket control problems in that division."

What did she mean by that? Some speculate she meant she would stop plea bargaining cases and bring more of them to trial.

Two observations: Judges run the courts, not lawyers, and they don't intimidate easily. They have their little ways of bringing prosecutors and defenders alike to heel.

What's more, if Chambers started backing up trials and refusing to plea-bargain, the system would bog down.

In a way, the system is self-enforcing, whether the Attorney Regulation Counsel acts or not. Chambers' term expires next year and if voters think there's a problem with the DA's office, they can take care of it then. Already rumors are circulating as to who may challenge her, and the toughest challenge may even come from within her own party.

Based on the evidence of the past few years,Chambers at the very least appears impulsive and lacking in tact. It's fine that she aggressively defends her staff, or her own salary for that matter, but the blunt, combative style she adopts when doing so understandably rubs people the wrong way.

However the Attorney Regulation Counsel rules on her case, Chambers should think twice the next time she is tempted to issue a truculent manifesto and instead concentrate on prosecuting bad guys.