Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Home › News › Local News

Citing ethics rules, judge bars DA from prison murder case

Lawyers didn't disclose previous work for inmates

By Sue Lindsay, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 8, 2008 at 3:44 p.m.
Updated April 9, 2008 at 12:43 a.m.

Text size  
Carol Chambers

Carol Chambers

Related Links

Related Stories

More Local News

More stories »

A district judge has barred Arapahoe County District Attorney Carol Chambers from prosecuting the death penalty case against one of two prisoners charged with killing a fellow inmate at the Limon Correctional Facility.

Lincoln County District Judge Stanley Brinkley disqualified Chambers' office and the capital crimes unit of the State Attorney General's Office from prosecuting Alejandro Perez in an order that became public Tuesday.

Brinkley ruled that prosecutors who previously represented Perez or witnesses in other cases had a conflict of interest in prosecuting him now.

The judge said the two offices violated professional ethical rules. He also cited Chambers for violating state funding laws in billing the Department of Corrections for staff salaries for work in the case.

Chambers is appealing the order and declined further comment, said spokesman Mike Knight. Attorney General John Suthers' office also declined comment because of the expected appeal.

Former client charged

Perez is one of two inmates charged in the 2004 beating and stabbing death of Jeffrey Heird, an inmate at the Limon Correctional Facility.

The other inmate, David Bueno, went on trial before Perez and a jury is deliberating his case.

Similar motions were filed in the Bueno case and the judge found no conflict of interest, Knight noted.

"I have never seen a group of prosecutors act less ethically and honorably than here. I commend the judge for his decisive action in rooting out this ethical corruption," said Perez's defense attorney, David Lane.

Daniel Edwards, a special prosecutor in the case from the capital crimes unit, previously represented Perez as a defense attorney in a 1996 second-degree murder case.

Edwards represented Perez in a hearing asking the judge to reconsider his sentence.

The conviction is one of the aggravating factors prosecutors plan to use as the basis for seeking the death penalty.

"He represented Alejandro Perez on the very murder conviction Edwards now employs in the effort to execute him, and Alejandro Perez objects to his lawyer trying to kill him," Lane wrote in his motion to remove Edwards from the case.

The former lead prosecutor in the case, Robert Watson, represented a witness, Michael Snyder, in the case when he worked as a defense attorney.

Watson represented Snyder five years before the Heird murder. Snyder is a prosecution witness against Perez and is named as an alternate suspect by the defense.

Billing questioned

Judge Brinkley said neither of these potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Watson, now district attorney for the 13th Judicial District, and Edwards said they didn't remember their representation of Perez and Snyder.

"The court concludes that not only were numerous rules of professional conduct violated but also these are indeed special circumstances that would render it unlikely that Mr. Perez would receive a fair trial if (the two offices) were allowed to remain in the case," Brinkley wrote.

The judge also took issue with Chambers' billing the Department of Corrections for salaries of staff working on the Perez case when only costs should be billed.

State law permits counties to be reimbursed for costs of prosecuting inmates involved in crimes, but Chambers went too far, Brinkley said.

Judge Stanley Brinkley ruled:

* The office of Arapahoe County District Attorney Carol Chambers and the capital crimes unit of the attorney general's office are barred from prosecuting the death penalty case against Alejandro Perez.

* The offices violated professional ethical rules by not disclosing conflicts of interests by two prosecutors who previously represented Perez or witnesses in other cases.

* Chambers violated the spirit of a state law that allows for counties to be reimbursed by the Department of Corrections for prosecuting inmates involved in crimes.

* Prosecutors cannot use more than 50 named inmate witnesses at a death penalty sentencing hearing for Perez because prosecutors used an uninformed "shotgun" approach in listing them as witnesses.

Carol Chambers

Elected in 2004, the Arapahoe County district attorney is no stranger to controversy.

2004

* After her election, but before taking office, Chambers argues with the Arapahoe County commissioners for reducing her salary from $147,357 to $120,000.

2005

* Chambers writes defense attorneys that an Aurora police sergeant's personnel records undermine his credibility in testifying against criminal suspects. The sergeant, Brian Saupe, had been found innocent of evidence tampering in a case prosecuted by Chambers before her election. A judge ruled that Chambers had done nothing wrong when Saupe sued her to stop the letters.

* Chambers accuses an Arapahoe County judge of retaliating against her office for complaints it filed against some judges.

2006

* A three-judge panel finds Chambers used the power of her office to intimidate a lawyer trying to collect a debt from an Englewood councilwoman Chambers knew.

2007

* Chambers' office says it will not use the testimony of an Elbert County sheriff's sergeant, who has made more than 40 drunken-driving arrests, to prosecute cases, a decision her office says is based on allegations that he fabricates evidence and uses excessive force, even though an internal affairs investigation absolved him of those charges.

Comments

  • April 8, 2008

    12:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Oldmanriver writes:

    Wow, stupidity at every level. Really makes you wonder how these people ever got jobs in the DAs office to begin with. This is elementary stuff here kids!!

  • April 8, 2008

    12:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    buffsblg writes:

    I got to read the entire opinion thanks to a lawyer friend and the judge just blasts Chambers and the two lawyers involved. The guy at the AG's office actually had represented the defendant on the prior case that Chambers was using to justify the death penalty and even filed a motion on the defendant's behalf at the exact same time he was working for the prosecution. Unbelievable!!! Moreover, neither of these lawyers or Chambers revealed the conflicts until they were uncovered by the defense. Lots of taxpayer money wasted in starting over on this and a lot of licenses on the line.

  • April 8, 2008

    12:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    Lawyers have ethics? Oh yes, that's the rules they play by to keep themselves out of jail. I has absolutely nothing to do with what humans call morals.

    "Licenses on the line"? I'll believe it when I see it. Should be more like jail time on the line for lying. Yes, intentional non-disclosure of facts is lying ... at least to humans ;-)

    Getting a government job is no big deal, you just have to be breathing ... and they can give you a waiver for that one!

    Scott

  • April 8, 2008

    1:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    samsmargolis writes:

    I bet all the supporters of Chambers in the last election are just beaming with pride...she continues to impress with her class and professionalism. What is this now - four or five ethics or conflict of interest investigations...so far?

  • April 8, 2008

    2:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    Good god, will "Q" be the next presiding AG in Arapahoe County? Thank God there is a real judge with an ethical bone out there.

  • April 8, 2008

    3:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jim writes:

    Major Charlie Foxtrot. It's like walking into divorce court and discovering your spouse is represented by your old lawyer who knows everything about you that was disclosed in what you believed was a confidential relationship.

    RULE 1.9. DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS
    (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter
    shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a
    substantially related matter in which that person's interests
    are materially adverse to the interests of the former client
    unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in
    writing.

    From the Colorado code of ethics for lawyers. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

  • April 8, 2008

    4:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    happymike44 writes:

    I don't know the law but when I was falsely arrested the cop.Who did not obey the law and arrested me on a third party hearsay statement.Was only concerned with his not being sued for false arrest and false imprisonment.The people involved in my false arrest later admitted that they lied to the police.All I know is it seems they listen to the criminals more then the innocent.

  • April 8, 2008

    6:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JCS1958 writes:

    While I am not opposed to executing murderers, this kind of makes me wonder if these bureaucreats can be trusted to carry out a fair capital prosecution. That is as good of an argument against capital punishment as there is.

    When you are the only one that does your job the way you do it, you should stop and think about how you are doing it. Even a monkey has that much common sense.

    I am stunned that we may tolerate this kind of thing from prosecutors. This is a pretty obvious use of a murder trial to take scrutiny away from a DA's legal problems. this should go beyond censure, all the way to disbarrment.

  • April 8, 2008

    6:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    haloguy628 writes:

    Welcome to the 18th Judicial District where ends justify the means and you better go along or you'll be mercillesly mowed down by the righteous protectors.

    Chambers needs to be ran out of town. Position with that much power needs to be held by somebody who has at least some semblance of ethics and who is not blinded by rhetoric.

    I am however afraid that this kind of behavior is prevalent on national scale. Every dirty trick the so called protectors of society can get away with, every law that can be bent, every pretense that can be used to get their way will be used in name of defeating "criminals" and "terrorists".

    Only problem is that it starts to feel like we the common folks are actually the "criminals" and "terrorists". Food for thought, and call for action me thinks.

  • April 8, 2008

    8:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Hstowell writes:

    "I have never seen a group of prosecutors act less ethically and honorably than here. I commend the judge for his decisive action in rooting out this ethical corruption," said Perez' defense attorney David Lane.

    Speaking from the experience of being in a courtroom with David Lane I thing he needs to take a look in the mirror if he wants to have a good look at an unethical attorney. He and one other attorney I can think of should be the last ones to grandstand on this subject. I find it laughable evertime the press rushes to quote this guy.

  • April 9, 2008

    2:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    raidermom writes:

    As a former employee of Ms. Chambers, none of her actions are surprising in the least. She is the Most unethical DA in office in the State of Colorado. Rules do not apply to Ms. Chambers, just to others. I am very pro law enforcement by the way. I just hope someone (anyone) has the courage/willpower to run against her in the next election. By the way, she's not only wasting our money on this death penalty project of hers, she's also trying to get a giant, super court/DA complex built out at Centennial.