U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 30, 2007 06:29 PM UTC

Jeffco DA Storey: No Manzanares "Grandstand"

  • 24 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

Jefferson County District Attorney Scott Storey has issued a detailed defense of his handling of the criminal case against Larry Manzanares, including conducting a highly criticized news conference and releasing an 80-page affidavit.

Storey provided a two-page written analysis with the understanding that it would not be published until after the Friday funeral for Manzanares, the former district judge and Denver city attorney who committed suicide June 22…

The district attorney said he and his staff were “shocked and deeply troubled” by Manzanares’ death.

But “we believe we did our job,” he wrote. “A much different approach would surely have been branded favoritism toward a well-known and powerful person, an allegation that had been made in the early stages of the investigation.”

Separately, Storey’s office acknowledged Friday that the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel had received a request to investigate his actions. Storey said he would provide whatever information was required.

Storey goes on to defend, in particular, his lengthy press conference about the porn allegedly found on Manzanares’ computer as necessary to show his “motive” in the evidence tampering charge, and also notes that Manzanares was “charged, not convicted.”

As we pointed out last weekend, what punches holes in Storey’s credibility is not the handling of the Manzanares case itself as much as a comparison of his handling of Manzanares with other recent high-profile cases. The argument can be made that the Jeffco DA’s office hyped this case–over an alleged $1,500 theft of state property–far more than, for example, the case of ex-Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall, who stands accused of attempted theft in the amount of many thousands of dollars. When Paschall was indicted in January, the Jefferson County DA issued a terse, half-page press release on the matter, where Storey was quoted saying among other things that “Mr. Paschall must be treated as we would any other citizen.”

We’ve commented at length in the last few months about the growing and interconnected web of scandals involving Jefferson County elected officials. The former treasurer stands indicted on felony charges, the county is desperately trying to rid itself of $60 million in illegal investments made by the treasurer days before leaving office, and two out of three county commissioners are heavily implicated in a bizarre scheme to silence critics using taxpayer-funded private investigators.

But if you count the number of stories in the media about the Jefferson County scandals compared to press coverage of the Manzanares case–coverage driven recently by the Jeffco DA’s salacious press conference and its fallout–a clear disparity emerges.

Bottom line: was Larry Manzanares treated like “any other citizen” over his alleged $1,500 theft? Not even according to DA Storey, who says in this response that the excruciatingly detailed account of Manzanares’ charges was necessary because he was a “well-known and powerful person.”

How can these two antithetical statements be reconciled? Why did former Jefferson County Treasurer Paschall deserve to be treated like “any other citizen,” when Manzanares was subjected to a weeks-long media spectacle that ended only when he took his own life?

On its face, Storey’s denial of any “special treatment” one way or the other in the Manzanares case sounds believable–when put in its proper context, however, it’s just not. His prior statements and actions belie the claim he’s trying to make. In fact, they raise far more questions than those related to Larry Manzanares.

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on “Jeffco DA Storey: No Manzanares “Grandstand””

  1. Compared to the way
    Scott Storey handled Paschall his actions were despicable.

    However, to blame him for this tragedy is a cheap shot. Who knows what demons raged in the head of Lawrence Manzaneres?

    Clearly he was unbalanced as shown by his stealing of the computer in the first place.

    It is fair to criticize Scott
    Storey but it is a cheap shot to blame him for the tragic outcome the case took. Others who stole computers of similar value from the courthouse were also charged with felonies.

    1. I don’t like prosecutors love of newsconferences and after Nifong you would think people would exercise a little restraint on public comments.  But no one can make you kill yourself. 

      If you have a head full of bad wiring, your odds are just low unless you get treatment.

      1. The point is the difference between how the Jeffco DA handled one situation compared to another, seemingly similar situation. We don’t dispute, of course, that Manzanares chose to commit suicide of his own volition.

        This is about why a Denver public official received so much more attention, by the press and from the Jeffco DA, than a Jefferson County public official involved in a much greater scandal received. Manzanares’ response to that attention, though noteworthy, is a separate matter.

        1. If the press wans to try people that is their business, they are not subject to the same ethics rules.

          I agree that there has ben very limited information about the JeffCO scandals in the paper, but that is a failure of the press.  I also agree that the DA should handle similar legal issues in a similar manner, but to me that means fewer press conferences by the DA not more.

        2.   The answer is simple and obvious.  Mark Paschall, like Scott Storey, is a Republican.  Although I have not seen any confirmation of Denver, I presume Larry Manzanares was a Democrat.
            From Ken Starr to Carol Chambers to Scott Storey… anyone else see a pattern here?

          1.   Although I have not seen any confirmation it, coming from the Rogue City of Denver, I presume Larry Manzanares was a Democrat.
              I should never post anything until after I’ve had my second cup of coffee in the morning.

  2. First mccasky and congrove, then paschall, then congrove again, Hutfless, paschall, congrove, county attorney’s office, and NOW we have to start investigating our DA. It’s ANOTHER expensive and time-consuming “investigation fiesta” of a jeffco elected official.

    If anyone took the trouble to add up the amount of money and time that all of these investigations have cost the happy-go-lucky taxpayers in jeffco; then add to that all of the money that has been paid in settlements to employees and ex-employees that have been wrongly and/or illegally treated; and finally add in the lost productivity that mccasky and congrove’s Confidential Informer Network and other “policies” have caused the staff, there would be no shortage of funds at jeffco. These are really massive expenses, and are not trivial at all.

    I hope that in 2008 the voters in jeffco pay a little bit of attention and not just vote next to the little ‘R’ candidates; we can’t afford much more of this nonsense, taxes in jeffco are plenty high enough.

    I am of the opinion that even the jeffco Republicans won’t be silly enough to run congrove again, but we need to keep clearly in mind that mccasky has been right there acting with congrove all along. With a three-person board, it always takes two to take any action, and it has been mccasky and congrove, congrove and mccasky all along.

    1. . . . in building the Taj Mahal here, providing a palace of luxury at taxpayer expense.
        As a side note, when you examine other similarly lavish over-the-top civic expenditures, like the marble, onyx and etched glass interior of City Hall in St. Paul, at least there’s occasionally an explanation for it, such as that the bond money to build it was approved just before the Great Depression, which resulted in labor and materials being available for pennies on the dollar.
        What’s the excuse in JeffCO? I mean, Adams County has a large, relatively new and functional (practical) facility. Did it cost as much? And, if so, are the taxpayers getting more for the same expenditure?

  3. Let’s see, now.  Posts about our court system are normally extremely disfavored.  This one is obviously about our court system.  Polsters absolutely didn’t want to talk about the Manzanares affair.  This one is obviously about the Manzanares affair.  ColoradoPols claims to be non-partisan.  Pols invariably goes out of his/her/its/their way to mention anything and everything that can even be remotely linked to Kevin McCasky.

    Jeffco DA Scott Storey’s explanation as to what happened and why (published in its entirety in the Rocky) is compelling on its face.  Of course, if you are a rabid partisan Democrat who wants blood, and for whom felonies are a “minor matter” when committed by Democrats and judges (the felonies Mark Paschall are facing are of basically comparable legal severity, but Pols wants his head, even though he has yet to be convicted), nothing will suffice.

    For instance, we have heard you whine that Storey should never have allowed the affidavit to be published.  Well, Storey knows enough law to know that there is no way he’d ever be able to get away with that, and that he would open himself to charges of favoritism if he did.  He notes, “The court denied a defense motion to seal the affidavit, effectively ordering its release. The managing editor of one of Denver’s daily newspapers has publicly said that, if this affidavit had been sealed, he would have immediately filed suit to gain its release.”  And those who know their law know darn well that he would have succeeded.  So, how can Storey be blamed for this?

    Were references to Judge Manzanares’ porn stash in the affidavit appropriate?  Absolutely, and anyone with a modicum of legal training can see this:

    The affidavit’s information about the contents of the computer was relevant, necessary and proper to demonstrate a motive to tamper with physical evidence, one of the charges in this case. The downloaded information was also included in the affidavit because it corresponded in time to dates that the computer was allegedly used at Judge Manzanares’ home, a connection recognized as relevant in broadcast news stories. Other information, such as material related to airplane crashes, was included because it tended to show that the computer was used by the defendant himself, since he was an airplane pilot.

    Why wasn’t anyone upset about that reference?  Because it didn’t make him look bad?  Well, if that is the case, we might as well do away with arrest warrants and affidavits altogether; they are supposed to allege bad acts in a candid manner.

    If there is any evidence of disparity of treatment between the Manzanares affair and the Paschall prosecution that does not exist only on ColoradoPols’ fevered imagination, it is not abundantly clear.  The media was more interested in a porn-phreak judge who provided enough information to prove in a court of law that he was a thief than it was a run-of-the-mill corrupt Republican money manager who was trying to line his pockets (way too common, and not too sexy).  Hence, the need for a press conference. 

    Do all Polsters actually agree that judges should be exempt from the law, and their felonies should be dismissed routinely as “minor matters?”  Tiltawhirl has uncovered a scandal of staggering proportion, but many of you care more about the rights of common thieves and illegal immigrants than you do those of law-abiding citizens.

    1. Could it be the ghost of Rio Grande allegedly banned from our midst?  Similar writing style.

      What I’ve “uncovered” may, perhaps, be “staggering” but, to this Pols community, comprised of probably 60% lawyers, it ain’t “news.” Everybody in law in this district (except me, I guess) already knew this.

      If fact, I’m going to be writing a self-help guide (which will be available on KnowYourCOURTS.com), which may deceptively seem inviting to my UPL friends over at the Attorney Deregulation Council, entitled, “The Pro Se Guide to the Federal Courts in Colorado.”  The References page will contain a lengthy list (e.g., Chemerinsky’s Federal Jurisdiction, the SPLC Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys, the Federal Judicial Center’s Manual for Complex Litigation, etc.)

      When you open up to the first (and only) page in the main body of my comprehensive self-help guide to the federal court system, it’s going to have a URL link to Schlatter’s August 8th, 2004 Order, with one sentence that reads, “Parties without representation are not permitted to proceed to trial in this district. All appeals thereto are affirmed under a purely deferential standard or under the because-I-said-so doctrine or both; the decision will be unpublished and non-precedential; and any petition for rehearing will be axiomatically denied.  Therefore, why are you contemplating filing anything, as evidenced by the fact that you’re now reading this?”1

      Before I started this post, I hadn’t even begun writing my comprehensive Guide to the Federal Courts in Colorado for Unrepresented Litigants.  Now, I’m finished and ready to go to print!

      ___________________
      1    A footnote (just like this one) will explain that this constitutes an observation (not legal advice) and that the reader should make his or her own informed decision based on those facts I’ve made available as well as his or her independent research and/or consultation with an attorney (the recommendations obtained from such a conference are, however, predictable).

      1. As you can see, Bob Larson a/k/a “Nemesis” is back, right on cue.  The only reason that I don’t post in my own name is that he continually stalks me on the ‘Net, as he has admitted here.

      1. Let me share the tragic tale of Shirley the Shill, a member of the Mighty Larson Art Players back in the ’90s:

        Caller: “My children became involved in drugs, and now they’re involved in murder.”
        Larson: “What?!”
        Caller: “Now they’re involved in murdering a man, chopping him up in little pieces, and throwing him around the desert in Arizona….”
        [WDIV reporter Mike Wendland’s voice-over] “Critics also question how real the callers are that come into Larson’s program, and how responsible he is in putting them on the air as fact, as in this call, two months ago, about an alleged Satanic murder near Yuma, Arizona:”
        Larson: “Your daughters chopped a man up and scattered his pieces in the desert?”
        Caller: “Yes, sir, and you can check it out with the Yuma, Arizona police department if you want to…”
        [Voice-over] “We did just that. Both the Yuma, Arizona police and the sheriff’s department tell us that nothing even remotely resembling such an incident has ever been reported there.”[RealAudio: WDIV excerpt, Original [edited] Talk-Back call; Expanded text of call]

        http://home.earthlin…

        You’ve been outed as a fraud, Larson.  Deal with it.

        1. he wins every time you respond to him with these looney sounding rants. Why don’t you just ignore him, the way many bloggers here ignore you?

    3. Shatnerologist, AKA Riogrande, AKA Ken Smith, said: “Do all Polsters actually agree that judges should be exempt from the law, and their felonies should be dismissed routinely as “minor matters?”  Tiltawhirl has uncovered a scandal of staggering proportion, but many of you care more about the rights of common thieves and illegal immigrants than you do those of law-abiding citizens.”

      1) I haven’t seen a single Polster argue that judges should be exempt from the law, and that their felonies should be dismissed as “minor matters,” though many reasonable people argue for proportionality rather than dysfunctional vindictiveness in our criminal justice system, regardless of who the perpetrator is.

      2) Our founding fathers, who you cite so often and so selectively, understood that the protection of the rights of “law-abiding citizens” depends quite sensitively on our commitment to the protection of the rights of *people accused of being* “common thieves,” since, until convicted, they are presumed to be law-abiding citizens.

      I think we all appreciate your totalitarian tendencies (while conveniently opposing what you deem to be one form of totalitarianism) as much as we adore your inflammatory language. 

      1. If I recall correctly, both Paschall and Manzanares faced felony charges of roughly equivalent legal severity.  To call for the head of one, and to excuse the crimes of the other, is hypocritical in the extreme.  The law may be an ass (and I would certainly be the first to argue for more severe punishment of white- and black-collar crimes), but it is what it is.  Our legislature deemed the crimes to be of equal severity.  Why should a Democrat be given mercy, when a Republican is drawn and quartered?

        As for the notion of being “innocent until proven guilty,” you conveniently forget that the admissions by Manzanares which Tony Kovaleski caught on tape constitute conclusive evidence of his guilt — evidence made more conclusive by a self-inflicted bullet to the cranium.  That Manzanares was never tried because he offed himself before trial doesn’t make him any less guilty.

        As for your charge of “totalitarianism,” perhaps you could be more specific? I only insist that no man is to be above the law, and none are to be beyond its protection; if that is totalitarianism, then it is probably a good thing.

        1. involves, in one sense, the ability to persecute people without convicting them of crimes. Despite your interpretation of the evidence, the fact is that the man was never convicted of any crime. I am not arguing about his innocence or guilt, just about the rule of law, which you are so adamant about preserving. According to the law, he is innocent. You argue that it is a travesty to recognize that fact. I argue that it is a travesty not to, not for Manzanares’ sake, but for mine, and for everyone else’s.

          And with that, I’m through with this discussion. What I have stated is simple and clear, and however you try to muddy the water, it just comes down to whether you believe in the rule of law, or in the omniscient determinations of Ken Smith. We all know which one you believe in, but you’ll forgive us for generally being in disagreement with you on that matter.

      2. Tilt has documented a scandal, which is certainly relevant to Colorado politics.  Where is the outrage, that you have only found within yourself when a petty thief offs himself?

        As for me, at this point, I’m mostly interested in talking with Sirota.

        1. not what you decide I am obligated to discuss. Also, I don’t recall expressing any outrage regarding any element of the Manzanares affair. My outrage was directed only against your overly-convenient interpretation of “rule of law.” You have a tendency to make false attributions to other bloggers, which serves no purpose other than to continue to erode what little credibility you may have in some very few people’s eyes.

          If your purpose is to turn people off to your issues and to predispose them against your arguments, you’re doing a bang-up job. If you have any other purpose in posting here, then you really need to rethink your strategy.

    4. what kind of insurance does JEFFCO have?  In 2000,  Steamboat had “employee crime insurance” and “public official errors and omissions insurance” that both had only $10,000 deductibles.  I thought that encouraged misbehavior.

  4. sounds like “shatnerologist” is channeling “rio” these days….. (and giving Capt. Kirk a bad name while he’s at it!)

  5. Bush spares Libby from prison
    Mon Jul 2, 2007 6:22PM EDT

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush on Monday spared former vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby from going to prison for 2 1/2 years for obstructing a CIA leak investigation.

    “I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive,” Bush said in a statement. “Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

196 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!