Colorado Springs Criminal Attorney Blog

O.k., I came across this article today. Now, the Greeley Tribune's headline editing aside (look at it again), this article brings up an ugly truth that sometimes raises its head in Colorado Springs domestic violence cases involving divorce and children. What is that truth? Sometimes people lie! I don't mean a difference of perspective about the same event--I mean out and out lies. It doesn't happen in many cases, but in a criminal domestic violence case whose participants also have a divorce or custody dispute going on, look out.

Look, as a Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney and former El Paso County prosecutor, I've seen my share of horrendous domestic violence (DV) cases where emotional and physical abuse is common place, shocking, and sadly ends with a serious injury. For everyone of those cases, however, there are three of four or more where one party or another blows a small incident out of proportion to gain an advantage as a relationship comes to an end. Some are small exaggerations, but some are just lies. And the problem is this: the system (police, judges, DA's) has sometimes been burned when it didn't treat the true bad guy seriously. As such, our legislature has decreed that anytime a DV allegation is made, someone is arrested and, once arrested, prosecuted. Those charges have serious and long lasting consequences. Consequences like persuading a judge in a divorce action to deny custody based on the fact that one parent has pending DV charges. Hopefully my friends that are domestic violence victim advocates will forgive me, but some "victims" game the system. Like the subject of the article above.

So, if you or someone you love has been charged with domestic violence and you think you may have been "set up", give me a call to talk about your options.

One of the things I deal with every day in my job as a Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney is the toll addiction takes on our communities. It has a real sociological and financial impact. There was a time when our communities banded together and took care of those who had addictions and mental health issues--for example, Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney looking after Otis when he fell off the wagon. That time seems to be slipping away.

In real life, it seems that while the new system is well meaning, it really "piles on" and can make it harder for those charged with DUI, Possession of Drugs, or an alcohol offense. Financially, for the average Colorado Springs DUI or DWAI case, a client is conservatively looking at $1200 in fines and court costs, $1200 in ignition interlock fees, $600 in alcohol class fees, $600 to $1200 in probation supervision fees, $75 in community service fees PLUS jail fees PLUS insurance increases PLUS lawyer fees PLUS lost income if the client goes to jail. And that's just on a first offense.

More important than the money, though, is the loss of self esteem, the shame, the family stress, and the work stress an El Paso County DUI or Colorado Springs Drug Possession case can cause. People lose their jobs for these type of offenses. There's a stigma to them as well. My most important responsibility, especially early on in a case, is to let my client know to take a deep breath, slow down, and educate him or herself about the process--because the uncertainty about the process is one of the main causes for my client's stress (and can be a trigger for further substance abuse problems). Once a client knows what he or she is facing, it's much easier to come up with a plan on how to make the best out of a bad situation. And, it's really important to assess whether there is an actual substance abuse issue or just some bad choices that have been made. That education and assessment process needs occur in every case.

With those societal and financial costs in mind, I found this article really interesting. It seems that in 1971, Massachusetts was cognizant of the need to treat those were struggling with substance abuse and dependence with a little more compassion than now. I understand that it might cost Foxborourgh a little more to control the rowdies after a big sporting event, but I'd think that is a million times offset by the tax revenue and lease fees having the stadium brings in the first place. It seems that reverting back to Mayberry wouldn't always be a bad thing.

This just in from the Colorado Springs Gazette: Local El Paso County and Colorado Springs Police will conduct a DUI Checkpoint tomorrow night (Friday, July 15, 2011). The original CSPD DUI Checkpoint Press Release can be found here.

I've already espoused my dislike of sobriety checkpoints here. The just reek of "Stop and show us your papers!"

I really think that the resources expended on checkpoints would be better utilized by patrol officers actually patrolling to observe the poor driving that's indicative of impairment. I think our Constitution would appreciate it, too. One thing that is interesting is that our Supreme Court has indicated that a constitutionally permissible checkpoint should be publicized prior to the implementation of the checkpoint so that citizens that wish to avoid the checkpoint can. Why is that interesting? Well, neither of the above press releases tell us where this checkpoint is. Not only that, it would seem that the operational meeting for the checkpoint (another component of a constitutionally permissible checkpoint) isn't occurring until 10 pm of the day of the checkpoint. Hmm. Here's hoping that's a typo in the press release and the police aren't being that disingenuous.

Again, our case law allows DUI checkpoints, but it sets limits to prevent discrimination and abuse of this intimidating law enforcement technique. If you were arrested at a DUI checkpoint, call an experienced Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney to assess whether you were properly detained.

While I was on my recent blogging hiatus, some interesting stuff DID happen. One of my favorites is about a driver who was charged with harassment by the Colorado State Patrol for saluting a trooper--well, giving the one-finger salute! Here's the article from the Denver Post. I find the comments to the story very illustrative somewhat ironic.

Now, don't get me wrong--the police have tough jobs. I have a lot of cop friends. Plus, where would my career be without the police charging people? But--all that said, in our country we have something called the First Amendment. It's really important. So important, that when our Founders included the Bill of Rights, they put it first! And nowhere is the First Amendment more important than when it comes to criticizing government--police included. Courts have long recognized this very important right--whether it's burning a flag (distasteful, but it sure makes a point) or flipping off a trooper, our Founders made a decision that we've agreed with for 221 years--"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

O.k., I'm back from extended hiatus. I just couldn't bring myself to sit down and write. Plus, I've been busy. Which is good a thing for a Colorado Springs defense attorney to be--you don't want to be the guy that no one hires!

Anyway, I was asked a couple of times last week for my thoughts on the Casey Anthony verdict and the Dominic Struass Kahn debacle. I really didn't follow the cases (too close to my actual job to have me interested), but I did prosecute those types of cases and some of my clients asked for my thoughts. Most of the questions were about how could a jury walk this (insert bad language of your choice here) woman or how Strauss Kahn could have been charged in the first place.

With regard to the Anthony trial, I've always believed that the longer a criminal trial is and the more witnesses the State has to call to prove a certain proposition, the harder it is to get a conviction. There was no one who could say--"yeah, it was her, I saw her do it because she was angry and then she dumped the body". So the prosecution went with, "she's a bad person, she partied when she didn't know where her kid was, and she lied to the cops so she MUST have done it." That's just not proof of an act. Sure she's abhorrent, but they couldn't prove what happened. And that's the essence of our system--you can't convict a person just because you don't like 'em. If you could, well, we'd have the Salem Witch Trials all over again. And that's what the system is designed to prevent.

In both instances, the prosecution overreached--in Anthony they went for capital punishment when they couldn't even prove the cause of death!! This article quoting an Anthony juror explains just that--you actually need more than a bare allegation to prove murder. And the prosecution overreached because of the public nature of the case. Juries don't like that--in Florida or Colorado. With Strauss-Kahn, they arrested and indicted before the investigation was complete. Same thing, they wanted it to look good for the press. Here are two excellent essays on the subject--the first from Jeffrey Toobin and the second from Scott Simon. Just click on their names to read their words. Even though the public perception of "justice" may have been offended, the process is actually doing it's job--slowing down the emotional rush to judgment and making sure that rational logical thought decision is the basis for far reaching and permanent decisions. Thanks system!