aurora theater trial

Holmes case and trial costs still being tallied

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:22:20 +0000

Holmes case and trial costs still being tallied Anonymous (not verified) Sun, 12/20/2015 - 13:22 Lo Snelgrove , Peri Duncan , Carol McKinley

Number reaches $4.5 million — and that doesn't begin to count defense attorney salaries and some expenses still to be released by prosecutors

Graphic by Lo Snelgrove/CU News Corps

No one knows exactly how much taxpayer money was spent on the Aurora theater shooting case, but the three-year investigation and trial is surely one of the most — if not the most — expensive in Colorado history.

Figures obtained by CU News Corps from several public agencies reveal that the investigation and trial has cost at least $4.5 million in total, and those numbers will rise even more when the 18th Judicial District releases final figures early next year. Ten attorneys’ salaries for both sides — another $4 million — are not included in this figure, because they would be paid regardless of the trial happening. The ACLU of Colorado estimates the average cost of a death penalty trial to be $3.5 million, before any appeals.

“Given how much the prosecution cost, plus ancillary costs like security at the courthouse and police overtime, it’s a safe bet to say this was the most expensive case ever to be tried in Colorado,” said Steve Zansberg, president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.

But this is still only an educated guess from the longtime media lawyer — nobody can say with certainty what the costs of this trial actually are. Nobody except the people who spent the money.

CU News Corps opened official records requests with multiple entities, including the 18th Judicial District, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office and the Office of the State Public Defender. All requests were fulfilled, except that of the State Public Defender, who replied only with the salaries of the five attorneys who worked on the case for three years. Nobody outside of the OSPD knows how much money was spent on psychiatric experts, forensics, travel or any additional costs.

State Public Defender Doug Wilson has been under scrutiny for not releasing his office’s bill for the trial, but Wilson said his ethical obligations to protect his client’s communications and confidentiality prevent him from doing so.

“My job is to protect that person sitting beside me,” Wilson said. “I have no duty or loyalty to you as a citizen, or to the victim, or to the governor or to law enforcement. I have one duty and that is to protect that one person sitting beside me, and we believe in that.”

Colorado’s public defenders and prosecutors are now engaged in a very public spitting match over who spends how much in capital punishment cases and how much the public should know about those costs. The 18th Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler said the public defenders have an obligation to the taxpayers to open their financial books. Brauchler led the prosecution of Holmes and convicted him, but lost a bid for the death penalty.

“They don’t want the public to know how much they spend,” Brauchler said. “Taxpayers should say, ‘We’ll give you money when you tell us how you spend it.’”

In response to the influx of criticism, Wilson performed his own open records requests on the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council. He told CU News Corps that on a statewide level, the DA’s yearly budget is almost twice that of the public defender’s, or nearly $157 million.

Ernie Lewis, executive director of the National Association for Public Defense, said it’s dangerous to compare the budgets, because the two offices’ jurisdictions are funded differently.

Both sides are funded by taxpayer dollars: the 18th Judicial District’s budget is supported by its counties, the OSPD is fed by the state. One aims to bring justice to victims and criminals. The other defends Constitutional law and people who couldn’t otherwise afford an attorney. Both are vital to the functioning of our justice system.

“The competition over budgets between prosecutors and public defenders is a relatively old story,” Lewis said. “It happens in most places because the pie is finite, and when you’re in an adversarial relationship, both parties are going to want some sort of advantage.”

Some prosecutors are starting to feel outmanned by the OSPD, which has been reported to often have more lawyers on a case than their opposition. Tom Raynes, executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council, said some counties can’t keep up.

“For example,” Raynes said, “In Pueblo, there are 22 prosecutors, but there are 26 public defenders. They get pounded down there.”

Wilson holds fast to his claim that he cannot — according to the American Bar Association — ethically divulge any details on the Aurora theater killer case, but his state-approved budget, along with performance reviews, is available on his office’s website.

“We are more transparent than almost any state agency, and we are more transparent than almost any prosecutor’s office in the state,” Wilson said.

Squaring Off

Prosecutors claim they reveal every penny they spent on the Aurora theater shooter case, from how much they pay their experts to what it cost to stock the courtroom with tissues. Unlike the OSPD, the DA’s office is subject to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).

The public defender’s office does not have to comply because it operates under the Judiciary System — the entire branch can turn away CORA requests. Colorado is one of 13 states that exempts offices within the judicial branch from open records requests.

“We’re really not trying to hide anything. This isn’t me playing a shell game,” Wilson said.

Still, prosecutors contend that taxpayers who fund the OSPD should know how every dime of their money is spent.

“This is a fundamental responsibility of state government. And since no one can question them, they are their own gatekeeper,” Brauchler said.

Some state legislators agree with Brauchler and are working on a bill for the 2016 session that would make the State Judiciary subject to CORA. But Wilson says even if such a bill passes, he would not — could not — give up the numbers. It’s going to take a lawsuit, he said.

“I’ve been waiting for you guys to sue me for three years,” Wilson said. “Sue me. Let’s find out. I believe we will win.”

Wilson cited Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6, which he said preserves client confidentiality, and, along with Colorado law, shelters his office from having to release details about how it allocates much of its budget. If Wilson released the numbers, he said, he would face personal penalties, the worst fathomable being disbarred.

Lisa Teesch-Maguire, one of Brauchler’s deputy prosecutors, called Wilson’s use of Rule 1.6 a ruse.

“They just hide behind the veil of, ‘it’s attorney-work product,’ and I don’t think it is,” Teesch-Maguire said.

The high-profile mass murder trial is what drew attention to the OSPD’s spending, but it’s one piece of the office’s overall budget. Nationally, Colorado falls in the middle of overall spending for public defenders, with funding of $16 per resident per capita. Oregon spends nearly $26 and Mississippi spends just over $5. Colorado’s public defenders have an annually approved budget paid by the state, compared to Louisiana, which is funded by fees associated with traffic tickets.

But when it comes to the death penalty, the Colorado OSPD opens its wallet a little wider, said Bob Grant, the former district attorney who prosecuted Gary Lee Davis. Davis was the last person executed in Colorado.

“I think they spend money on capital cases to say they spend money,” Grant said. “The public defenders want to make it as expensive as possible.”

Grant said it makes sense that the public defender puts greater fiscal emphasis on capital cases — the OSPD opposes capital punishment. But, he said, “Many people would question the basis for that magnitude of that expenditure. Outside of capital cases, I don’t have any reason to believe they’re frivolous in their spending.”

Grant said district attorneys and public defenders cannot be compared side-by-side. The two entities take on different types of cases, and their budgets can’t be compared without first considering case and workload of both offices.

Public Defender Costs

Here’s what the Office of the State Public Defender has released about its budget in response to Open Records requests from several news agencies, including CU News Corps.

A figure that amounts to half of the office’s total attorney salaries for the entire state in the last 13 years went toward defending Holmes. Of the $4.34 million paid in salaries since 2002, more than $2 million was for salaries of the five attorneys who defended the mass murderer. Wilson pointed out that those attorneys would have been paid regardless of having the theater shooter case to work on.
The office has spent at least $6.3 million on 10 death penalty cases over the past 13 years, according to documents obtained by CU News Corps from the Office of the State Public Defender.
$1.99 million of that $6.3 million represents “aggregate expenses”.
The OSPD’s budget for next year will be $86 million. Last year they returned $500,000 of unused funds. Wilson supplied CU News Corps with the entire budget for all prosecutors in the state, which is nearly $157 million.
CU News Corps specifically requested numbers regarding the millions of dollars spent on Holmes’ trial, but the public defender’s office would only supply salaries of the five attorneys defended the Aurora theater shooter. Wilson also confirmed that the OSPD did not pay to house the defendant’s parents during the trial, who came from California to support their son.

The 12 information requests denied to CU News Corps included:

Money spent on expert witnesses, some of whom never testified.
Money spent on travel to conduct interviews with the gunman’s family and friends in and out-of-state.
Cost of housing character witnesses and their families during the trial.
Cost to house the five attorneys during the four-month trial.

18th Judicial District Expenses

Here’s what CU News Corps has learned about money spent by by District Attorney George Brauchler’s office to build its case and prosecute the killer. They reported spending a total of $1.84 million for the three-year investigation and trial. The office received a federal grant that brought their out-of-pocket expenses down to $183,024. This number is subject to rise after the first of the year.

$543,131 in total mandated costs funded by state funds:

$498,852 for expert witnesses
$44,279 in other costs associated with the trial (water bottles, tissues, subpoena services, testifying witness travel)

$1,114,498.92 in federal grant money spent:

$871,733 for Deputy District Attorney Lisa Teesch-McGuire + 3 victims advocates and 1 victim compensation specialist
$201,718 for victim travel
$28,846 for additional supplies
$12,202 “professional services”

$183,024 spent from the Office of the District Attorney’s operating budget:

$75,123 for the help of retired district attorney Dan Zook
$66,433 for Teesch-Maguire’s salary between January 20 – October 10, 2015
$20,000 in 640 hours of employee overtime
$12,809 for investigator travel
$8,658 for additional supplies

More Costs of the Holmes Case

Additional costs we gathered from other public entities added up to nearly $2.5 million.

The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office

$1.625 million for housing, feeding and transporting the defendant from his arrest in July 2012 until Aug. 28, 2015, the day after sentencing. The Sheriff’s Office received a grant of $403,218.77 to help with the costs.

Nearly $95,000 went toward housing, at a cost of $83 a day. The mass murderer was in a single-person cell.
$35,917 that went toward transportation, but Arapahoe County spokesperson Julie Brooks did not go into detail.
$506,372 in employee overtime.

Graphic by Lo Snelgrove/CU News Corps

Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

$17,265 for investigating James Eagan Holmes from July 20, 2012 until Aug. 27, 2015 (13 months). That includes ballistics, fingerprints, computer/IT information, and any other costs related to the case.

Colorado State Patrol Department of Public Safety

$997 for a plane ride the killer took to the Mental Health Institute at Pueblo in late July 2014 for in-person sanity evaluations.

Colorado Department of Human Services

At least $499,079 for 700 hours of service for two court-appointed psychiatric experts hired to examine Holmes. The final figure is unknown. The amount above does not include the on-stand testimonies of state-appointed psychiatrists Dr. Jeffrey Metzner and Dr. William Reid during the guilt-or-innocence and sentencing phases of the trial. It’s normal for expert witnesses to be paid $300-600 per hour. At one point during the trial, Reid made a statement under oath said on-stand that implied he’d been paid, “half a million dollars”.

Aurora Police Department

$315,200 in employee overtime.

Looking Ahead

After years of facing criticism over their accused secrecy, Wilson’s office is starting to open up. At a Smart Act hearing this week, he announced his attorneys’ salaries with lawmakers.

Colorado Public Defender Doug Wilson

“He’s sharing so that we can have some idea of what taxpayers are paying for,” said Rep. Yeulin Willett (R-Grand Junction).

Willett was so impressed with Wilson’s willingness to divulge that the state representative decided to withdraw his sponsorship of a bill seeking to force the public defender to reveal more.

“If their overall budget is fair, I have to respect their office,” Willette said. “The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, and it’s easy to criticize how much they spend on those cases.”

If Wilson stops providing this kind of information openly, however, Willett said he will reinstate his support for the bill.

Other legislators remain unsatisfied with the lack of accessibility to information kept within Wilson’s office. State Representatives Polly Lawrence (R- District 39) and Rhonda Fields (D-District 42) have plans to push a freedom of information bill that would make the entire Colorado Judicial Branch subject to open records requests, to include the state public defender. A similar bill aimed specifically at Wilson’s office failed last year.

The OSPD is wading into two new high-profile cases as the new year approaches: that of accused Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear, and that of a 16-year-old girl arrested in relation to threats made to her high school in Highlands Ranch. Although Wilson has professed fiscal transparency to the public and to legislators, his office isn’t leaving the spotlight with the year 2015. He can likely anticipate ongoing demands for more disclosure as his office continues representing clients people love to hate.

Off

Traditional

White

Meet Colorado’s Public Defender

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 18:09:07 +0000

Meet Colorado’s Public Defender Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 12/07/2015 - 11:09 Carol McKinley and Lo Snelgrove

Why we don't know how he spends taxpayer dollars and what it's like to defend bad guys like the Planned Parenthood shooter

Colorado Public Defender Doug Wilson

This CU News Corps story ran in the Colorado Independent.

Colorado Public Defender Doug Wilson’s office, which provides free criminal defense for people who cannot afford a private attorney, spends $80 million plus each year. When it comes to specific cases, the public is left asking: On what?

Wilson was appointed in 2006 and inherited an office that was underfunded and 45 percent understaffed. In 2008, the American Bar Association said that understaffed public defenders have an ethical obligation to turn down cases. Wilson took the ABA’s opinion to the Statehouse and pled for more funding, which he received.

Compared to how much other states spend on their public defenders, Colorado lands in the middle, averaging out at $16 per resident. Oregon spends the most at $25 and Mississippi the least at just over $5 per resident. He stresses that the money that is spent on defense is in direct response to the prosecutions’ charging decisions. In other words, the defense only reacts to what and how the prosecution decides to charge in a particular case.

Over the past three years, prosecutors and lawmakers have grilled Doug Wilson about where all his office’s money is going in high-profile cases like those of mass murderer James Holmes and accused Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear.

And while Wilson has been forthcoming about how, generally, his office spends its budget, the lack of details in his disclosures has left many wondering:

How much does it cost taxpayers to defend someone in a capital case?
Where is the money going?
Why was Colorado’s Judicial Branch, under which Wilson’s office operates, noted as one of the country’s most secretive?

CU News Corps reporters Carol McKinley and Lo Snelgrove sat down with Wilson to find out why he won’t reveal how much money his office spends on high-profile clients to the public that pays his salary.

CU News Corps: So you feel the need to explain yourself?

Doug Wilson: I‘m not.

Why are you talking to the press?

I have an obligation to get people off my lawyers’ backs for stuff that’s just inaccurate, uninformed and sometimes intentionally wrong.

Robert Dear made 18 outbursts in court during his last hearing on Dec. 9, including statements about wanting a new lawyer. (The attorney he’s referring to is Dan King, who also defended James Holmes.) Why did you bring Dan King back in so soon off of the theater shooting trial?

Dan King is the best lawyer for this case because of his extensive background working with mental health issues.

Did you give King the job of defending Dear, or was it his choice to fly in from Thanksgiving vacation in Vermont the night before the first appearance on November 30?

(Nods his head ‘yes.’)

That’s a tough duty.

It is. He’s a tough boy. He’ll be fine.

But you said you wanted to give the lawyers who worked on the theater shooting trial a break.

Well, he had a couple of months.

How long was Robert Dear talking to the police before he finally got a lawyer?

They spent five hours with him before we ever saw the guy. And now we’re trying to figure out what he said and what he didn’t.

Same with Holmes?

Yes. It’s a cat and mouse situation a lot of times.

�鶹��Ƶ the costs of defending the ‘bad guy’

CU News Corps: Your office represented James Holmes. People get upset about tax dollars being used to help a killer.

Doug Wilson: People assume we condone our client’s actions and that we don’t care about the victims. Neither of those things are true. What my reaction to California (San Bernardino murders) was, I was in a meeting and I left the meeting because I felt so bad for the victims. It’s no different when there’s a homicide or a bad case in the state of Colorado. I feel bad for the victims. But the difference is this: Tomorrow, I’ve got to go to jail and meet that person. Because that’s my job. And that’s what we do. And we believe sincerely in the protection of that person’s constitutional rights.

You say you’re transparent, but your opponents say you’re not. This is partly because you won’t reveal details about how much it costs to defend your clients. I’m going to use James Holmes as an example because that’s the most expensive. It’s got to be millions and millions of dollars — five attorneys working on this case for three years, investigators, forensics, experts. Why can’t we know how much you spent defending Holmes?

First, we were created in 1970, and in legislation, there were three things I think are critical to this discussion. First, I am mandated to give representation to indigent clients at the same level that people who have money can get. Two, I am required to comply with Colorado rules of professional conduct. And third, I have to comply with the American Bar Association guidelines: 1.6 of the rules of professional conduct, which specifically states that I may not release any case-specific information without the client’s permission.

What happens if you do?

I am responsible for every single pleading in every case in the state of Colorado. What happens is, I and my lawyers get a grievance filed against us. What happens then is anything from disbarment, losing my license, suspension to public censure to private censure to probation. That’s up to the Office of Regulation Counsel, which is an office set up right beneath the Colorado Supreme Court. Our licensing and regulatory agency. I’m subject to grievance. Whether or not — or how — they punish me is up to them. I’d be subject to some sort of discipline if I violate 1.6.

But the argument is that you’re different from private defense attorneys because the public pays your salary. So the public should know how you spend its tax money.

Show me a piece of paper that says I’m different than private lawyers.

But you’re paid by all of us. Shouldn’t we know where our money is going?

Absolutely you should. And you do. You know every dime I’ve spent. If you go to our website right now, you’ll see a budget breakdown. You’ll see a performance review. Every dime I spent in every district.

That tells me you’re okay with giving up all of those numbers except for the ones that explain specifically what you spend on specific cases.

I am okay with giving up any numbers if I am not ethically prohibited from doing so. And we do that better than almost every prosecutor in this state. I’ve been trying to get the prosecutors’ budgets for six years.

Do you have them now?

Yes.

What are they? How much do they spend a year?

Nearly $160 million.

How did you get those numbers?

Negotiated with them. I told them we’ll give you what we can, not case specific.

So the total that all prosecutors in this state spent on cases in fiscal 2015 was around $160 million?

It’s a little over $157 million, but that doesn’t include a single dime spent by local law enforcement. Not a single dime to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. For Holmes? They were off the charts with lab work (spending). We’re not allowed to work with CBI…We have to go hire private out of our budget. They don’t. That doesn’t include the Attorney General’s costs when they work on cases, which they did on the Holmes case. And not the Department of Human Services, which spent half a million dollars on experts (for the prosecution).

But you had experts you didn’t even use whom you paid?

I’m not going to answer that question. You know that.

Robert and Arlene Holmes sat behind their son almost every day of the trial. Several of the victims and their families were also there every day. And, besides, some money from a victims’ compensation fund paid for their accommodations out of their own pockets. Did you pay for Mr. and Mrs. Holmes to attend the trial?

I’ll answer. It’s not a 1.6 violation. But it’s the stupidest friggin’ question I’ve ever heard in my entire life. Why would we do that?

So that they could attend the trial of their son?

Their son is my responsibility — their son. The Holmes family, I empathize with a lot because they have been vilified. Bob and Arlene Holmes have done nothing wrong except have a mentally ill son. We didn’t pay a dime for his parents. My understanding is they stayed with some local friends. That would be fiscally irresponsible for me to do.

Rule 1.6 Explained

(Link to earlier sit-down interview CU News Corps did with 18th Judicial District DA George Brauchler)

https://cunewscorps.com/3579/aurora-theater-trial/coffee-with-george-brauchler-theater-shooting-case-da-lays-back/

CU News Corps: Back to Rule 1.6. What would it take to get your office to release the costs to defend James Holmes? A legislative bill?

Doug Wilson: No.

A release from the Supreme Court justice?

No. It’s going to take a lawsuit, which is what I’ve been telling you guys for three years.

So, you wouldn’t mind if we all knew how much you spent?

I do not care. I just released numbers on Monday.

(Note: The office released aggregate costs on 10 death penalty cases over 13 years in which prosecutors filed a notice of intent. The cost amounted to $6.3 million spent on those 10 cases from July, 2012 to October, 2015. The office released the information in response to requests made by several news outlets, including CU News Corps.)

You did announce the salaries for your attorneys on death penalty cases since 2002. And the Holmes case was about half of that. Am I right?

I’m not going to answer that question.

It cost over $2 million for attorneys on the Holmes case alone.

Right, but they worked on that case 100 percent of the time.

You did supply us with how much money, in the aggregate, your office spent on death penalty cases since 2002. You spent more than $4 million on ten of them in the 13 years.

(Note: The exact number supplied by Wilson’s office states it cost $4,343,484 to pay salaries since 2002. Attorneys salaries for the Holmes case ate up half of that 13-year figure.)

Doesn’t the public have the right to know about the rest of your expenses, for example how much you spent on things like defense experts, forensics and travel costs? Are you worried that if the public found out that number there would be an outcry and your budget might be cut?

I don’t know. What I know is that nobody from the public other than you guys and the legislature have asked me that question. I keep hearing this mythical unicorn: Public’s right to know overrides the Constitution and my ethical and statutory obligations. If you can show it to me, I will give you stuff right now. Can you show it to me?

No.

Because there isn’t anything.

Are you saying 1.6 supersedes the First Amendment?

It’s a Sixth Amendment issue. Does your First Amendment override my Sixth? I think not. It’s like the Ten Commandments. God didn’t come down and say the First Commandment is better than the tenth. it’s all equal. I’m saying we have 10 amendments. They’re pretty much all equal and my Sixth Amendment isn’t somehow subordinate to your First Amendment.

The Public Defender’s Budget

CU News Corps: Prosecutors and some lawmakers are saying that you are not transparent. You’re telling me you’re more transparent than they are.

Doug Wilson: We are more transparent than almost any state agency, and we are more transparent than almost any prosecutor’s office in the state. What you’re asking is: “Wilson what’s your budget, how do you spend your money? Are you accountable to the taxpayers in the state for your budget?” I just had a hearing on my 2016 budget. Every year I have to present a budget to the Joint Budget Committee. I’m asking for a 0.47 percent increase. Not even 0.5. The request is $86 million dollars. Last year, we spent $81 million. Last year, we gave money back to the Joint Budget Committee’s general fund.

(Note: The office’s active cases increased from 80,000 in the 1999-2000 calendar year to more than 140,000 in 2013-2014, including 18,000 new cases from January 2014 to July 2015.)

Everyone wants to talk about James Holmes and Dexter Lewis (who was convicted for killing five people in Fero’s Bar and received a life sentence in August, 2015). But we had 160,000 active cases last year. Two of them were death cases. That’s not the biggest chunk of what we do every day. We spend most of our time grinding out in a courtroom in Saguache pushing back on the prosecutor, law enforcement on DUIs, domestic violence. That’s a bunch of what we do.

(Note: The OSPD’ reported its average cost per case is $519)

Public defenders vs. prosecutors: bad blood in Colorado

CU News Corps: Can you practice in this state without adversity?

Doug Wilson: It’s an adversarial system. It’s not set up to be good buddies. It’s set up to be antagonistic.

Does that make you better because you keep each other on your toes?

Sometimes.

I don’t know if you want to be holding hands.

I don’t want to be holding hands.

Can you practice together in this state without adversity?

We don’t have vigilante justice in this country. We have an adversarial system where the prosecutor’s job is to seek justice. My job is to protect that person sitting beside me. I believe we should have strong, knowledgeable prosecutors, judges and public defenders. I’m not sure all prosecutors believe that. I think they believe that people have the right to counsel but they don’t have to be that good, either. Prosecutors will tell you poor people need counsel. They just won’t tell you they want good lawyers. They want us to be second-class citizens. Just like our clients are second-class citizens. They think poor people should have poor lawyers. They literally want a two-legged stool.

The head of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council, Tom Raynes, says this is about having parity. He sees counties that are staffed with more public defenders than prosecutors and he’s afraid they are getting, in his words, “clobbered.”

You know what? They should be happy that we’re good just like I am happy that they’re good because I would rather have smart , well-funded, ethical prosecutors on the other side of my case than somebody that isn’t paid well, isn’t very smart and cuts corners. I would take that non-political, smart, ethical prosecutor that is tough….any day.

What do you mean by non-political?

Someone who doesn’t think the way you try cases is on your Twitter account or on your Facebook account.

(Note: The 18th Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler was caught Tweeting from the courtroom during the theater shooting trial. Unlike Wilson, who is appointed, Brauchler was elected to his position. A rising star in the Colorado Republican party, he was courted to run for U.S. Senate against Michael Bennet but turned the opportunity down. He is considered by the state GOP to be a potential candidate for governor in 2018. Until then, he is running as an incumbent for DA in the 18th Judicial District in 2016.)

It’s unusual for you to sit down with reporters, especially with your budget sheets spread out all over a table. Your time is valuable, as you oversee 488 public defenders in 21 regional trial offices throughout the state. Is this a response to your critics who are criticizing you for refusing to divulge how you spend your money?

Yes. The story I’d like to see is that the public defender’s office is transparent except when it comes to protecting the individual clients’ rights and that the public defenders cannot ever violate that Sixth Amendment obligation to that client. We’re really not trying to hide anything, guys. This isn’t me playing a shell game. You look at the numbers we’ve just released. Ten capital cases. $6.3 million. That’s not a bunch of money.

How are the attorneys in your office holding up. You’ve had several high-profile capital cases in a row: Holmes, Lewis and now, potentially, Dear.

I think my people are worn out and exhausted and tired and they’re still doing their jobs because they believe in what they do.

Below is the entire interview between CU News Corps reporters Carol McKinley and Lo Snelgrove, and Doug Wilson, Colorado’s State Public Defender.

[soundcloud width="100%" height="300" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" allow="autoplay" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/238129090&color=%23ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true"][/soundcloud]

Off

Traditional

White

Coffee With George Brauchler: Theater shooting case DA sits back

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:28:00 +0000

Coffee With George Brauchler: Theater shooting case DA sits back Anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/22/2015 - 14:28 Carol McKinley

On the eve of the Aurora theater gunman’s formal sentencing, we have a conversation with the District Attorney who prosecuted the case for seven months. George Brauchler sat down with CU News Corps’ Carol McKinley to explain what’s ahead. This week, starting Monday, dozens of victims who were in theaters 8 and 9 who have not testified will get their chance to look the gunman in the eye and describe how the shooting affected their lives.

Throughout the trial and during this interview, Brauchler talks about “this guy.” He’s referring to the defendant, James Holmes.

By the time it’s over, the convicted theater shooter could receive as many as 12 consecutive life sentences plus 3,318 years in prison.

Over a small cup of dark roast, Brauchler discusses his disappointment over the single juror holdout, sleepless nights of strategy, and an embarrassing nickname the jurors came up with when they couldn’t remember what to call him.

THE FORMAL SENTENCING

CU News Corps – Formal sentencing starts Monday, the 24th of August, almost seven months to the day to when jury selection began. Why is this sentencing different from what we’ve already heard?

George Brauchler – First off, you heard a very truncated and limited presentation of the impact of those murders on those people. The judge made it clear that you don’t get the mirror image of what (the defense) got with (James Holmes). They put on 34 witnesses to talk about poor little mass murderer and how he loved his dog and how he was a renaissance student at age 7. In contrast, we got to put on one family member per murder victim in that final phase. What never got covered in that final phase were the attempted murder victims. They are entitled by law to address the court as to appropriate sentencing.

CU – What can we expect?

Brauchler – My guess is we’ve got 150-200 victims. It’s hard to guess who at the last moment is going to be willing and able to come forward and talk. Some could provide written statements to the judge. Some will come forward and read their statements. I think we’ll be done in hmm… ( he looks up and counts) three days. It will be tough.

Each one of these victims is a separate case in and of itself. We prosecute individual murder convictions all of the time. This is 82 named victims wrapped into one trial. We could have charged individual attempted murder cases for every single victim in theaters 9 and 8. But we didn’t do that.

CU – (Holmes’) 3,318 years on top of 12 consecutive life sentences is still life in prison. People are out there saying “Why are we doing this? We already know he’s going to prison for the rest of his life…”

Brauchler – It would be the biggest sentence in the history of the state of Colorado. But candidly, does it matter? Still, we’re doing this because: 1. There has to be formal sentencing and 2. The victims have a constitutional right to address the court. Even though we know he’s going away for every moment of his life, it’s not fair to cut them off.

THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY

Brauchler – I do feel for the defendant’s parents. They didn’t know this was gonna happen. But the guy murdered 12 on his way to murdering hundreds.

CU – For 65 days, he didn’t cry. He didn’t express any emotion except to stare straight ahead despite the showing of the autopsy photos and gut-wrenching testimony from victims and first responders…

Brauchler – We saw the “game-face” too. This guy was different outside the presence of the jury and when the cameras were off. He’d laugh. He’d chuckle. He’d turn to his council and they’d have short conversations. But man when the jury was coming in, this guy would put on his game face, and that’s what America saw.

CU – And you’ve been talking to some of the jurors since the final decision. Did they get that? That’s all they saw too. Did they understand what was going on when they weren’t in the courtroom?

Brauchler – Some of them speculated that that might have been the case. One juror said he noticed that the defendant stared straight ahead. Although they did notice that when things were on the screen that were him, or his handiwork at the apartment, they all mentioned the fact that he was glued to the screen for that.

Some jurors also said that it creeped them out that one of the defense attorneys would sit there and just stare at them and then openly wept for anything to do with the defendant; but, didn’t shed a single tear during the compelling victim stuff. They thought that that was not just weird, but they were put off with it.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOING FOR DEATH

CU – Do you regret putting Colorado taxpayers through the trial knowing you could have had the same outcome at the start?

Brauchler – I still believe that death is the appropriate sentence for what this guy did. But the system disagreed, and even if it was by one juror I respect that outcome. I believe in the system. But that doesn’t change my mind as to what justice was.

CU – You’ve revealed what the prosecution has spent on the trial – at least 1.5 million dollars. Why don’t we get to hear what the public defenders spent on this trial? They spent public money just like you did.

Brauchler – It’s a completely legitimate question for the public to ask, “What did the death penalty cost in this case?” We’re never going to get to know that because a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado interpreted an open records act law that is applicable to all of government to not apply to them. And because the public defender’s office sits under the judiciary, they now say, “We’re exempt from these open records act requests and we’re not going to provide any financial information to the public. We’re not going to provide any information about experts.” And so the public will not get to know and thus not get to scrutinize the amount of taxpayer dollars wasted by the public defenders’ office in the pursuit of whatever outcome they felt was right in this case or any other.

We know that they spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on experts that never came into the courtroom and never opened their mouths in any setting.

CU – Why?

Brauchler – They made certain tactical decisions. There are four experts I know of that they endorsed that had two effects. We had to end up endorsing experts to respond to them. That cost taxpayers money. And then when they don’t call them, we don’t call ours. Two of the experts they were going to call were going to say in essence that the Zoloft made him do it. So we had to endorse experts who were going to come in and say ‘That’s cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.’

CU – But he had quit taking the Zoloft way before the crime.

Braucher – Yes! In May! The also endorsed an expert who had never come in, never read the reports, but he makes a living traveling around the country testifying based on statistics and numbers and studies that this guy presents no risk of future dangerousness. That expert? Tons of money. (Editor’s note: this expert was never used.) There was another guy out of Atlanta who was gonna come in and say, “Yep, schizophrenia and it’s bad.” I talked to him on the phone and he revealed he was billing a discounted rate of $400 per hour and he had billed up to this point about 250 hours. He traveled to Colorado twice. He met with the defendant three hours at a time. His job was to go through reports and listen to the other experts. So I asked him over the phone, “What were you going to say that was different than what Dr. Gur said?” He goes, “Not much.” That guy charged $100,000 up to that point and the public defenders decided not to call him.

CU – Didn’t you have those kinds of experts too? People whom you didn’t call?

Brauchler – Yes and no. Some of the experts we retained were responses to what they did. Like the Zoloft expert. The other two experts we had early on were Dr. Phil Resnick and Dr. Chris Mahanee. They didn’t end up testifying in the trial, but they did take the stand in the week long psychiatric evaluation and they remained to consult with us during the trial.

REGRETS?

CU – Is there anything you would have one differently?

Brauchler – I just feel like it depends on which side you’re on. If you’re on the side of anti-death penalty, you conclude the defense did just what it was supposed to do. It found that one juror and they nailed it.

From our perspective, it was just uncontrollable bad luck in some ways. I’ve gone back over notes, I’ve reviewed all of the evidence and the jurors that have spoken to have told us, “You guys put on a great case. There’s nothing you could have done… WE were surprised at the hold out juror.” They said this juror had never raised any of the issues that came out at the end during any other phase of the deliberations. They were frustrated as well. It is what it is. That’s the way the system works. You just need one.

From our standpoint I don’t think any of the evidence could have come out for us any better than it did. And frankly, I don’t think any of the defense’s evidence could have come out any less effective than it did, but for one juror. And that’s all they needed.

CU – What about the two ‘wafflers’ Juror 17 talked about when she spoke with the press?

Brauchler – What we’ve discovered from the other jurors is that ‘waffler’ may be too generous a term. These were people who were heavily leaning toward death but they wanted to continue to deliberate and talk about it. And I imagine those deliberations would have continued but for the fact that one of the jurors said, “Hey, I’m done. I’m for life. Can’t move forward,” and they decided to call it when they did.

CU – When it came back as quickly as it did, were you convinced they would decide for death?

Brauchler – No. I was not convinced because they asked for the crime scene video. Earlier, I had told them if they had any doubts to go back and look at crime scene video to remind them of what that guy did.

I thought, “Okay, it either worked or didn’t.” And then it didn’t….

CU – “That guy” as you call him has never expressed remorse. In the 22 hours of psychiatric videos he did express regret, but he’s never said he was sorry. Do you think he will speak at the sentencing?

Brauchler – He obviously has the right to address the court at his own sentencing. Not the obligation. I don’t know if it would matter. Do you think that anybody would believe him? If this guy stands up and says, “I’m sorry for what I did,” would anybody believe him at this point? I wouldn’t.

His statements about what happened are those attorney-sounding coached terms like “I regret that this had to happen.” Well, that’s not responsibility. That’s not only what you did. My opinion is it would be hollow.

CU – You have said that you do think the defendant has a mental illness.

Brauchler – I think he’s got a mental illness. I don’t know what that mental illness is, but there’s no doubt he thinks differently than you or I do and thankfully most of the rest of the world. It’s interesting to note that when the first DSM (Editor’s note: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) came out, it had 60 diagnosable afflictions. The one that came out two years ago that we relied upon heavily in this case has 400. Are people getting more mentally ill or are we just coming up with ways to diagnose aberrant behavior and diagnose away evil? One thing is clear about this guy: Mental illness and evil are not mutually exclusive. Could he have a mental illness and still make evil decisions knowing they’re evil? The jury said unequivocally and very quickly: Absolutely he could.

THE JURY

CU – Have you spoken with all of the 17 jurors?

Brauchler – We’ve sat down with some of the jurors. We have not spoken with the lone holdout. The ones we’ve spoken with reached out to us. We did not pursue them. We’re talking to them to help us understand what went right and what went wrong. They said it wasn’t even a close call.

They’re anxious to talk about this too. I hope they feel comfortable talking to you. To tell the public what it was like to be on this jury. The great story to tell is from the jurors.

This jury worked together well, they talked through things even up until the end. They were surprised about the holdout juror. They did not see it coming. The juror that held out ultimately revealed that position very close to when they sent out the note to the judge that said, “We’ve signed the verdict forms.”

CU – Veronica Moser-Sullivan’s grandparents indicated there was a plant in the jury. Do you think this was her plan all along?

Brauchler – I’m not going to believe that until there’s evidence to the contrary. I don’t want to presume that this system and this case was corrupted. I believe this system is designed to allow one person to upend the justice apple cart. Even though the outcome wasn’t what I wanted, I respect the hell out of these jurors. I hope they tell their story.

CU – Where there any light moments when you spoke with the jurors?

Brauchler – We asked them if they had nicknames for us after all of that time they spent in that courtroom. They didn’t know who I was at first, so they called me “Mr. Broccoli.”

PERSONAL LIFE DURING TRIAL

CU – You have said that you rarely slept more than four hours a night. How was it going to home, and turning off the trial to pay attention to your four little kids?

Brauchler – Four that I know of….my wife hates it when I say that. But the weird timing is the verdict came back on my brother’s birthday. The Friday before my daughter started school. The boys are back in school now.

Yes, I’m bummed that I missed seven months of my kids’ lives other than seeing them at night. I’m bummed by that. But I can make up for that.

But what’s the true sacrifice? The families of these victims are never going to see these people on earth again. And that is something that is not lost on me.

Off

Traditional

White

Does Colorado’s death penalty have a race problem?

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 06:00:00 +0000

Does Colorado’s death penalty have a race problem? Anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/22/2015 - 00:00 Kelsey Ray

James Holmes was sentenced to life in prison despite killing more people than the three African American men, on Colorado’s death row, combined. Now, many are asking, does race affect who gets death?

James Holmes killed more people during his movie theater massacre than Nathan Dunlap, Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray combined. Dunlap, Owens and Ray, all of whom are black, are on death row. Holmes, who is white, will spend the rest of his life in prison.

Why?

The three jurors—two wavering, one resolute—who chose to spare Holmes’ life reportedly did so because of his mental illness, not his race. Attorney Forrest “Boogie” Lewis, who defended Dunlap in 1996, said, “It is folly to speculate on the motivation of individual jurors in such emotional, complex cases.”

Still, on the day of the Holmes verdict, Colorado state Rep. Jovan Melton tweeted, “Today’s verdict proves again that the Death Penalty is arbitrary. Only people on Death row in CO are Black. It has no place in CO.”

Melton’s Tweet echoes the “If he was white, he’d still be alive” argument that presents itself each time police kill another unarmed person of color. If Holmes were black, would he now be facing execution?

'Disquieting Discretion'

A recent study from the University of Denver Law School adds credibility to a theory as widely reported as it is unpalatable: Colorado’s death penalty has a race problem.

The DU study, titled “Disquieting Discretion,” features statistical analysis of more than 500 Colorado prosecutions from 1999 to 2010. Controlling for both the heinousness of crimes and the variable rates at which different racial groups commit crimes, researchers found that nonwhite defendants here are five times more likely to face the death penalty than their white counterparts. Of the 22 capital cases tried in those years, only two were against white defendants.

The study’s other major finding—that the 18th Judicial District prosecutes disproportionately more than its share of death penalty cases—suggests a potential explanation why. The decisions of individual juries cannot be controlled, but across the state, prosecutors pursue death against many fewer defendants than are eligible for it. District attorneys, in other words, have a large amount of discretion when it comes to deciding whose lives are put on trial.

This finding is not entirely new. Gov. John Hickenlooper acknowledged the discretion when he granted Dunlap an indefinite stay of execution in 2013.

“The inmates currently on death row have committed heinous crimes, but so have many others who are serving mandatory life sentences,” Hickenlooper said. “The fact that those defendants were sentenced to life in prison instead of death underscores the arbitrary nature of the death penalty in this State, and demonstrates that it has not been fairly or equitably imposed.”

Black and White

Bob Grant, a former prosecutor whose case against white defendant Gary Lee Davis led to the state’s last execution in 1997, said prosecutorial discretion is not problematic.

“You can do all the statistical studies you want, and they’re not going to get to the full story.” Grant said. “Race has nothing to do with a death decision. Never has.”

Defense attorney David Lane disagreed.

“The death penalty is, was and always will be about race,” Lane said.

The study’s authors agree with Grant that race is likely not an explicit factor for prosecutors or juries.

“We’re definitely not in the business of saying that these prosecutors or these jurors were out to kill a black person,” said Sam Kamin, one of the study’s authors.

But implicit bias, Kamin said, is a powerful thing.

“I think that all of us in society carry these preconceptions around about people, and it would be surprising if that didn’t manifest in our criminal justice system,” he said.

It’s possible that jurors are more likely to consider mental illness a mitigating factor for white defendants than minorities.

“I think that (Holmes’) mental illness was more important than his race,” said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “However, if you change his race, I’m not sure the same calculus applies.”

Lane speculated that jurors may have been more sympathetic to Holmes because of his race and class background. He was a graduate student. His parents took the witness stand and spoke articulately about his happy, stable childhood.

“If Holmes had been equally crazy and black, would one juror have said that mental illness for this African American man is so significant that I’m not going to pull the trigger?” Lane asked.

Crime and Punishment

Longtime Democrat Rhonda Fields, a member of the Colorado House, never thought she’d be a death penalty advocate.

“I didn’t support it,” she said. “I didn’t think I would ever be touched by it.”

But in 2009, capital punishment became personal for Fields.

Days before her son, Javad Marshall-Fields, was to testify against defendant Robert Ray for the killing of Marshall-Fields’ best friend, he and his fiancé were ambushed and murdered while driving. Ray had ordered the murders to protect himself from Marshall-Fields’ testimony. His friend Sir Mario Owens, who is also now on death row, carried them out.

“I support the death penalty because I believe that some people commit such heinous crimes that they deserve the worst punishment on the books,” Fields said.

She, along with many death penalty advocates, believes capital punishment differentiates the worst killers from those who commit, in the words of 18th Judicial District prosecutor George Brauchler, “run-of-the-mill first degree murders.”

Fields supported the death penalty for Ray because he was already facing life in prison for the previous shooting, and she also wanted him punished for the death of her son.

“Why would I want to give him a freebie?” she asked.

An African American woman, Fields is hesitant to say that race has anything to do with the decision to pursue the death penalty.

“I really have great confidence in the criminal justice system,” she said. “If a DA doesn’t want to use it as an option, it’s probably because the crime doesn’t meet the criteria.”

Still, she said, “I know race matters. We’ve seen these things play out.”

Witness Protection

Grant insists that the specifics of each crime, not race, are what matters. He pointed out that the study’s rough measurement for heinousness—whether a defendant killed more than one person—doesn’t give enough information about a crime to know whether the defendant deserves death.

“Look at the aggravating factors and decide for yourself,” he said. “They are what separate a domestic violence murder, for instance, or an individual dispute murder…from the most heinous, the most aggravated murders.”

One of the main aggravating factors against both Owens and Ray was the fact that they’d killed a witness. Outside the courtroom on the day Ray was sentenced to death, then district attorney of the 18th Judicial District Carol Chambers said, “Killing a witness undermines the very foundation of the criminal-justice system.”

In 2003, Caleb Burns and Nathaniel York – both white – kidnapped, bound, gagged and then murdered two teenagers they believed were witnesses to an earlier attempted murder. Like Owens and Ray, these white men committed their crimes in the 18th Judicial District.

Burns and York were both able to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences.

“Black men who kill witnesses in the 18th Judicial District get the death penalty,” said Lane. “White men get life.”

The Next Phase

Many state and national studies have indicated that race affects prosecutions and outcomes of death penalty cases.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that statistics are not enough. In 1987, University of Iowa professor David Baldus studied 2,000 murder cases in Georgia and found that killers of white victims were more likely to receive the death penalty than killers of black victims.

But when death row inmate Warren McCleskey attempted to use the study to overturn his sentence, SCOTUS ruled against him. Even if the statistics were accurate, the court ruled, it wasn’t enough to prove any racial motivations for McCleskey’s own case.

In an infamous opinion, Justice Powell wrote for the majority, “Apparent discrepancies in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system.’’

The sentencing trial of Dexter Lewis, who stabbed five people to death in a Denver bar in 2012, is set to conclude in the upcoming weeks.

A life sentence for Lewis, who is also black, could imply that Coloradans are simply becoming lukewarm toward the death penalty. Though two-thirds of Coloradans polled said they supported death for Holmes, support for capital punishment is at a 40-year low nationwide.

But a death sentence for Lewis will likely cause outrage, perhaps justified, among death penalty opponents.

In his executive order granting Dunlap a stay of execution, Hickenlooper wrote, “If the state of Colorado is going to undertake the responsibility of executing a human being, the system must operate flawlessly. The death penalty in Colorado is not flawless.”

He then added, “It’s a legitimate question whether we as a state should be taking lives.

This story originally appeared in The Colorado Independent.

Off

Traditional

White

In the jury’s hands: Scenes from closing arguments

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:00:00 +0000

In the jury’s hands: Scenes from closing arguments Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/07/2015 - 00:00 Carol McKinley

1. George Brauchler pacing like a prize fighter before his closing remarks, looking over at the crowded victims’ families side.

2. James Holmes, who had his head on his hands during jury instructions while the jury is out, is now staring straight ahead. And, as always, twisting in his chair.

3. Ashley Moser and a woman who looks a lot like her (mom?) lace fingers in a hand hold as soon as the prosecution closing starts. She’s wearing a purple shirt and jeans. As each name of the 12 dead is mentioned, families reach out to touch each other, crying quietly. Some of them have never met until today because they came in from out of town to speak to the court about impact. They are fast friends bound by unspeakable grief.

4. After the disruption during closings at Phase 2, at least half a dozen sheriff’s deputies placed on all sides of the defendant’s family are watching carefully. They are armed, and diligent. Everyone behaves.

5. When Tamara Brady starts her close,we notice some movement on the victims’ families side. They are getting up one by one and leaving the courtroom. Only around 5 families are left to listen to the entire defense closing, including victim John Larimer’s parents. Later, they remark “I looked up and everyone was leaving. I said ‘Did we miss a memo?’ ” Turns out the walk-out was not planned. When closings are over, the ones from inside walk out to join the rest. Many are hugging in the courthouse halls.

6. Brady mentions that Bob and Arlene Holmes have been in the courtroom every day and that his life has meaning to them, they look at each other and lock hands. When the attorney finishes, Mrs. Holmes lets out a breath.

7. Reporters who love trials and follow them are quiet. It’s almost like they’re stunned into silence as they ride down the elevator. It’s a first.

Off

Traditional

White

Jury rejects death for Holmes

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:00:00 +0000

Jury rejects death for Holmes Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/07/2015 - 00:00 Kelsey Ray and Carol McKinley

Theater killer will spend his life in prison without parole.

CENTENNIAL, Colo. —James Holmes will spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The 12-member jury was unable to reach the unanimous decision required for the death penalty. One of the jurors, who reportedly cited concerns about mental illness, was unable to sentence Holmes to death by lethal injection. The defendant faced the death penalty for his July 20, 2012 attack on the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, which killed 12.

The jury reached its verdict after just under seven hours of deliberations. Upon hearing the announcement that her son’s life would be spared, Arlene Holmes collapsed in tears. For the first time, they apologized for their son’s crime in a mass email sent at 8:11 pm – three hours after the decision was read. Their attorney spokeswoman Lisa Damiani wrote “The Holmes family is unable to make any comment at this time other than to say that they are deeply sorry this has happened and they are so sorry that the victims and families have suffered such tremendous loss.’

The victims’ families were crying, too, but for another reason. “I wonder how it feels to save the life of a mass murderer,” said Sandy Phillips in the courtroom hallway as defense attorneys walked by. Phillips’ daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was killed in the shooting.

Later, outside the courthouse, the grandparents of the youngest victim, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, told the dozens of reporters assembled, “We think he’ll die in prison.” Robert Sullivan questioned whether the juror holdout was a plant all along.

All but one of the jurors slipped out the back door and asked not to be contacted by the media. But number 17, faced the cameras in the parking lot where satellite trucks were beaming the breaking news of the three-and-a-half-month trial. “We were all in agreement for the death penalty but one, and there were two who were undecided. The one wouldn’t budge.”

The panel tried to convince the lone holdout of the heinous nature of the crime by calling for the crime scene video to be shown to her, but she held her ground. Juror 17 wouldn’t reveal the juror’s name, but said the reason for the her stance had to do with the gunman’s mental illness. “I am sorry for the families. I can’t fathom their grief. We tried.”

Holmes will now be sent to prison for life without parole. It has not been decided whether he will end up in Colorado or out of state. He may be sent to a special prison in Centennial where inmates who are potential targets of other prisoners will be safe.

Off

Traditional

White

OPINION: The ‘benefits’ of mass killings

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:00:00 +0000

OPINION: The ‘benefits’ of mass killings Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/07/2015 - 00:00 Lo Snelgrove

Blood and horror. Senseless violence. Public death. Not many people would disagree that mass killings are awful occurrences.

But some people benefit from them.

Friday afternoon, Aurora theater shooter James Holmes was sentenced to life in prison. The jury could have — if they’d unanimously agreed — chosen execution for the mass murderer. And had the prosecution not sought the death penalty, the shooter would have spent life in prison without the necessity of a 64-days-long, emotionally draining trial.

Initially, the shooter pled guilty and was ready to go to prison for the remainder of his days. His plea changed to not guilty by reason of insanity after the prosecution said they’d be seeking execution. Three years after the shooting and at the conclusion of the trial, none of the victims or their families have said they’ve found closure but many have said the trial forced them to relive the tragic night of July 20, 2012, and for some it evoked additional pain and grief.

“I never knew grief could be physically painful,” Tom Teves, father of victim Alex Teves, said at the midpoint of the trial. “It never gets easier.”

Victims ached while the shooter had an in-pouring of attention and amplified notoriety. Women sent him provocative and nude photos, which he hung on the wall of his jail cell. Some people tried to send him money to spend at the jail commissary, which he was prohibited from having. The killer will go down in history.

“The gaping void — the gaping wound — that we have with the loss of our granddaughter has been replaced with a new abscess of him living,” said Robert Sullivan, grandfather to 6-year-old victim Veronica Moser-Sullivan, after the sentence was announced.

While covering the trial, I asked a long-time print journalist if he thought the amount of media coverage was healthy for victims or for the general public. He took a moment to mull on it and then told me no, it’s not good but editors demand it because crime stories get more reads than anything else. This was the reporter’s sixth mass murder trial, he said.

The father of one of the deceased victims told me that his wife was prompted to Google her own name during a computer class and the search results displayed images and stories about the man who murdered her son.

The killer and the media benefit from tragedy. Victims don’t, not one iota. Even shooters who take their lives are remembered more than their victims.

Positive gains for people and organizations can be traced back to the very beginning, too. Directly following the massacre, Gov. John Hickenlooper called on the Community First Foundation to raise funds for the victims. Without permission, the non-profit organization used photos of the deceased to raise money that victims later had to fight to have disbursed directly to them. Following some mass shootings, there have been fraudulent fundraisers that employed tragedy to pool money that would never be seen by victims.

Community First’s 2012 public tax forms reported they gave $5,454 to the office of Gov. John Hickenlooper for “Aurora Victim Support.” When I asked the governor’s office how, specifically, this money was used to support victims, I was told they’d get back to me (I haven’t heard back in two weeks).

Community First Foundation 2012 tax form-990

Money-raising individuals and organizations benefit from mass killings, and politicians can, also. In the wake of tragedy politicians have the opportunity to say, “Our hearts are with [insert city],” and be remembered for how they handled a horrendous attack on their community or home state.

This is not to say that anyone wishes or hopes for a shooting or that they’re emotionally immune to pain or sympathy toward those suffering the most. Regardless, some people don’t shy away from the chance to gain something for themselves or their organization when manmade catastrophe strikes.

And people fueled by morbid curiosity, those who shamelessly indulge in following daily media coverage that brings attention to the killer — they too benefit by being thrilled and fascinated. But mass murder is not entertainment. Mass murder is not a vehicle for improving a politician’s public image or for increasing a non-profit organization’s general fund. Mass murderers should not be glorified or given more attention than the lives he stole or shattered.

This is the sad reality that I’ve perceived during my time covering the Aurora theater trial. Plenty of positive and beautiful things have been birthed from darkness, too. Nonetheless, I believe too many people do not operate on this basic question before acting: could my words or actions do more harm than good?

For me, this was amplified when media organizations chose to release the killer’s notebook filled with his detailed, murderous plans and philosophical ramblings. That notebook, published in PDF form online, got millions of views. Mass-circulated information can influence people for better or worse, particularly those vulnerable to being followers or non-skeptical believers of things they read or hear. There have been two more theater shootings in the last three weeks and still, some journalists refuse to consider the possibility that their reporting is a part of the cause of these shootings.

No one should seek to benefit from mass killings, even if the benefit is a byproduct of doing something well-intentioned. And if people gave more time, energy and conscious thought to the prevention of mass killings and post-trauma healing, I think our nation would be a safer, healthier place.

We decide our culture. Why shouldn’t we do our best to act according to our highest cultural ideals, especially in response to mass killings and tragedy?

Editor’s note: CU News Corps will honor the victims of this tragedy with every post via this graphic.

Off

Traditional

White

Holmes’ life in hands of jury

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 06:00:00 +0000

Holmes’ life in hands of jury Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 08/06/2015 - 00:00 Kelsey Ray

Killer's fate could be decided as early as Friday

CENTENNIAL, Colo. — After more than 60 days in court, the Aurora theater shooting is over. No more closing arguments, no more phases. Only the deliberations remain. In hours or days, the world will know whether James Eagan Holmes is to live or die.

Thursday’s closing arguments saw prosecutor George Brauchler and public defender Tamara Brady passionately argue across an unbridgeable divide. For Brauchler, the only justice is execution. But for Brady, there can be no justice in the killing of a mentally ill man.

All told, the two sides have presented 2,695 separate pieces of evidence and 306 witnesses. Starting Thursday, jurors will be left alone in a deliberation room to reckon with their own morality.

If Brauchler has his way, all 12 members of the jury will find that life in prison without parole — the same sentence given to those who murder without aggravation — is not enough for Holmes. But Brady hopes they will instead take mercy on a man she insists is simply the victim of unfortunate genetics.

‘Justice is death’

“This building that we’re in is not the Arapahoe County eye-for-an-eye center, or revenge center, or vengeance center,” George Brauchler told the courtroom during his closing arguments. “It is a justice center.”

As he has throughout the trial, he showed the jury photos of the victims killed in the July 20, 2012 shooting.

He walked the courtroom through the trial’s previous phases, reminding jurors that they have consistently chosen not to be lenient towards Holmes.

“But you did more than that,” became his refrain as he recalled the guilty verdict, the affirmation that the crime merits the death penalty, and the conclusion that mitigating factors do not outweigh aggravators.

“What is the appropriate sentence for such horror, such evil?” Brauchler gravely asked the jury. As the courtroom monitors replayed the shrieks from a 911 call, the faces of the 12 victims slowly fading to black, Brauchler made his final plea, saying the defendant’s name for the first time in the trial.

“For James Eagan Holmes, justice is death,” he said.

Anger without vengeance

As public defender Tamara Brady prepared to speak, nearly all of the victims’ family members filed out of the courtroom.

Brady reminded those who remained in the courtroom, “The death penalty will not make mental illness go away.” Unapologetically emotional, she pleaded with jurors to save her client’s life.

Brady reminded jurors that schizophrenia is not a choice and asked them not to punish Holmes or his parents for genetic bad luck.

She also warned jurors that they alone will be responsible for Holmes’ fate. “When you wake up in the middle of the night thinking about this trial, it’s just you,” she said.

Acknowledging the pain and loss suffered by victims and their families, Brady argued that the death penalty is not the solution. Instead, she asked for a more merciful response. “Anger without vengeance, sadness without hate, justice without violence,” she said.

“The deaths of all of those people cannot be answered by another death,” Brady said, sounding fully aware of her burden.

“Please, no more death.”

The final step

If even one juror votes against the death penalty, Holmes will spend the rest of his life in prison. Though the names of dissenting jurors will not be revealed in open court, there is no law protecting them from self-identifying or being named by other jurors once the trial concludes. More than 60 percent of Coloradans have said they support the death penalty for James Holmes.

The final verdict could come as early as Friday. The court will announce the verdict three hours after it is reached.

Off

Traditional

White

Down to the Wire

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:00:00 +0000

Down to the Wire Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 08/05/2015 - 00:00 Carol McKinley

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lUfLM_1W9k]

Wednesday, the prosecution wrapped up its victim impact section of the penalty phase with testimony from arguably the persons who suffered the most tragic loss in the theater shooting: Veronica Moser Sullivan’s mother.

The video was taken in 2001 on her last Christmas morning by her paternal grandfather, Robert Sullivan, who told the jury she was his little angel. It was the first and last time the jury would actually hear the voice of little girl in a shiny blue holiday dress as she pulled out her stocking and started to unwrap her presents. Ashley Moser, Veronica’s mother, testified from her wheelchair. She was asked what she missed most about her daughter, “I don’t know… everything,” she said in a very quiet voice. And then she broke down, “Her smile her laugh. The way she just was my little silly billy.”

Moser not only lost her only child, she also had a miscarriage and is paralyzed. She says she is still so depressed after the shooting that she is on medication and spends time at an intensive inpatient depression center.

Thursday, both sides will make closing arguments starting at one. The jury will likely get the case on Friday for deliberation. No one knows how long it will take for them to come up with a verdict. There are two choices: death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Off

Traditional

White

James Holmes still eligible for death penalty

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 06:00:00 +0000

James Holmes still eligible for death penalty Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 08/03/2015 - 00:00 Kelsey Ray

Theater shooting survivor Josh Nowlan says though he is very religious, he’s not opposed to the gunman receiving death in this case. “On to the next phase,” he said Monday.

By Kelsey Ray
CU News Corps

CENTENNIAL, Colo. — James Holmes is still eligible for the death penalty, a jury determined Monday.

After three hours of deliberation, all 12 jurors have determined that the mitigating factors of the case, including Holmes’ mental illness, normal childhood and relationships with family and friends, do NOT outweigh the aggravating factors of his crime. During the next phase of the sentencing trial, each juror must make the individual, moral decision of whether to sentence Holmes to death.

“When does mitigation outweigh aggravation?” defense attorney Tamara Brady asked jurors during her closing arguments Thursday. “When the mitigation is the cause of the aggravation. The mental illness…the psychosis is what caused James Holmes to shoot the people in the Century 16 theater.”

Brady encouraged jurors not to drag out the trial unnecessarily, urging them to speak up now if they don’t think they will be able to sentence Holmes to death. Monday’s verdict shows that not a single juror did so.

In case like this, that’s not uncommon at this stage, says defense attorney David Lane.

“Jurors will frequently say, “Yes, the crime was so horrendous that there could be nothing worse—the aggravation outweighs the mitigation,” he said.

But Holmes’ mental illness may still save his life in the next phase.

“A number of jurors might feel, in their own personal judgments, that it would be wrong to sentence a mentally ill person to death,” Lane said.

Former prosecutor Bob Grant disagrees. “I think it’s odds on that they will find a death penalty verdict,” he said. To Grant, who prosecuted Colorado’s last case to lead to an execution, the best argument in Holmes’ defense is one his attorneys failed to make.

“I don’t think they’ve made the right argument, and that argument is that society could have prevented this,” he said.

“I think they were just banking on the sympathy factor.”

The defense is unlikely to present any more evidence during Phase 3, Grant said. Jurors can expect to hear more emotional testimony from shooting victims about how the crime has impacted their lives.

Court will resume Tuesday at 10 a.m.

Off

Traditional

White