Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #49

[BeckyF]

Spencer Wilson KKTV 11 :

A few extra things:

Defense is claiming the first competency evaluation should not have been recorded, does not want the second one recorded.

Judge says he will look into it. Both prosecution and defense have copies, but were ordered not to watch until a ruling.
https://twitter.com/spencer_wnews/status/1303429428287070208?s=21

When asked why they don’t want it recorded, Spencer replies :


A combination of what they say would be breaching her right to privacy and the potential to color the next evaluation.

DA’s office says it’s in an effort to stop her first evaluation from being viewed by her second evaluator.

Regarding the recording of the evaluation, wouldn’t there be a state statute that governs how an evaluation is conducted? Are all evaluations recorded? I looked at some CO statutes that address competency evaluations but didn’t see anything that mentions whether they can be recorded or not.

 

[crhedBngr]

Good Afternoon.

 

[kittythehare]

Will you please explain what you mean by with impunity? I so need to believe that her statements can be used against her during trial. At least the DA has much to argue against a request for a change of venue.

I mean freely, not in breach of any existing laws or regulations pertinent to a crime of this magnanimity.
And with the potential and intent to harm others.

 

[MoeInVA]

Regarding the recording of the evaluation, wouldn’t there be a state statute that governs how an evaluation is conducted? Are all evaluations recorded? I looked at some CO statutes that address competency evaluations but didn’t see anything that mentions whether they can be recorded or not.

I’m no expert, but it appears to me that the video recording was required by law and that same law requires that the video goes to all parties. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2016a_019_signed.pdf
I found the bill text on this page: Videotape Mental Condition Evaluations | Colorado General Assembly
It does say that if the psychiatrist deems the video recording harmful to the defendant (mentally or physically) before or during they recording they can decide not to record/stop recording and note it contemporaneously in report with explanation. Any partial recording and report would still need to go to the prosecution and the court.

Based on this, it seems to me that any recording made should be shared with all parties by law. I guess the defense will argue it is harmful to LS so should not have been recorded in the first place. The law seems to leave that determination of harm to the psychiatrist as well as the responsibility not to record if it is harmful. I can’t imagine the psychiatrist will now say that they continued to record even though they felt it was harmful to LS. Sounds unlikely to be a successful defense tactic but they are doing their job. JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

I’m no expert, but it appears to me that the video recording was required by law and that same law requires that the video goes to all parties. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2016a_019_signed.pdf
I found the bill text on this page: Videotape Mental Condition Evaluations | Colorado General Assembly
It does say that if the psychiatrist deems the video recording harmful to the defendant (mentally or physically) before or during they recording they can decide not to record/stop recording and note it contemporaneously in report with explanation. Any partial recording and report would still need to go to the prosecution and the court.

Based on this, it seems to me that any recording made should be shared with all parties by law. I guess the defense will argue it is harmful to LS so should not have been recorded in the first place. The law seems to leave that determination of harm to the psychiatrist as well as the responsibility not to record if it is harmful. I can’t imagine the psychiatrist will now say that they continued to record even though they felt it was harmful to LS. Sounds unlikely to be a successful defense tactic but they are doing their job. JMO

Wow. Good research work @MoeInVA.

But that bill/law doesn't apply here, I don't believe.

In the research note (from your link) it is stated (bold added by me) "The bill does not apply to competency evaluations, which determine, prior to entering a plea in a criminal case, whether a defendant is competent to proceed."

It appears the bill only applies to "insanity" and "impaired mental condition" evals when either of those is asserted by the defense. Those are really a different kettle of fish.

One thing that makes competency evals a bit different is that the state can call for one of those (unlike the above kinds of evals.)

I'm not an attorney but calling for a competency eval could be a way for an unscrupulous DA to make a defendant answer questions. So he/she being entitled to a videotape of the eval would seem kind of screwy.
JMO

 

[Lbitts]

Protecting the privacy of a cold blooded murderer of a child does not make sense, in any form or fashion. I can’t even say what I really think here.

It makes sense so she can’t come back and say she was treated unfairly or her rights were possibly violated in this instance during the legal process.

 

[NCWatcher]

Protecting the privacy of a cold blooded murderer of a child does not make sense, in any form or fashion. I can’t even say what I really think here.

It makes sense so she can’t come back and say she was treated unfairly or her rights were possibly violated in this instance during the legal process.

Yes.

It's also the case that in the eyes of the law, she's not a "cold blooded murderer of a child." She's accused but not yet found guilty. And we do want to protect the rights of defendants. Even when we think they are guilty. If we don't our system of justice will suffer great harm.
JMO

 

[Lbitts]

Yes.

It's also the case that in the eyes of the law, she's not a "cold blooded murderer of a child." She's accused but not yet found guilty. And we do want to protect the rights of defendants. Even when we think they are guilty. If we don't our system of justice will suffer great harm.
JMO

Absolutely. I meant to elaborate along these lines in my reply but failed to do that. Thank you for saying it better than I could’ve.

 

[Lovethesouth]

Good Afternoon.

View attachment 263093 View attachment 263095

Saw where fires got worse with the winds sure hope you are safe !!!!

 

[MoeInVA]

Wow. Good research work @MoeInVA.

But that bill/law doesn't apply here, I don't believe.

In the research note (from your link) it is stated (bold added by me) "The bill does not apply to competency evaluations, which determine, prior to entering a plea in a criminal case, whether a defendant is competent to proceed."

JMO

Oof! Thank you for finding that buried research note and correcting me! Welp, I tried.

Anyone else want to take a stab or know of any laws or case law or practices in Colorado regarding videos of competency evaluations?

 

[Lovethesouth]

Yes.

It's also the case that in the eyes of the law, she's not a "cold blooded murderer of a child." She's accused but not yet found guilty. And we do want to protect the rights of defendants. Even when we think they are guilty. If we don't our system of justice will suffer great harm.
JMO

That is a huge GRAY area in this case .. but what she did was interpreted as cold blooded murderer ...& I see what you are saying but she shouldn’t get any privileges...but she is....she is getting a second evaluation .. but why is she not in the inmate population she claims she isn’t a harm to herself or others ....& she is getting ensure ... normally if you didn’t eat what was give to you in jail you just went without .

 

[Love Never Fails]

Yes.

It's also the case that in the eyes of the law, she's not a "cold blooded murderer of a child." She's accused but not yet found guilty. And we do want to protect the rights of defendants. Even when we think they are guilty. If we don't our system of justice will suffer great harm.
JMO

According to evidence, I don’t think she is guilty. I know she is guilty. I stand by what I said. We can agree to disagree.

 

[NCWatcher]

That is a huge GRAY area in this case .. but what she did was interpreted as cold blooded murderer ...& I see what you are saying but she shouldn’t get any privileges...but she is....she is getting a second evaluation .. but why is she not in the inmate population she claims she isn’t a harm to herself or others ....& she is getting ensure ... normally if you didn’t eat what was give to you in jail you just went without .

LS's second competency evaluation is occurring because of Colorado law. Either party can ask for a second evaluation. So that's not a special privilege created for LS.

I have no idea what the normal procedures in that jail are so I don't know whether getting Ensure is a "privilege." I seriously doubt someone tossed in the slammer overnight for drunk driving is given Ensure if he/she doesn't like the breakfast!

But it's pretty clear LS is being held long-term in that facility as the trial date hasn't even been set yet. (And that's not unusual for a murder trial plus there's COVID.) The jail does have a responsibility to insure inmates' safety and general health until trial and "insuring" health for any inmate may include providing Ensure. The jail also must protect inmates from other kinds of harm. That can affect housing/placement
decisions.

We are (hopefully) a civilized nation and don't punish people or run roughshod over their rights for merely being accused of a crime. We also don't intentionally allow vigilante justice inside jails.

My main point though was only that LS does have rights. That her pre-trial treatment can't rest on her being "a cold blooded killer" because at this point, she's not one legally speaking. It's not a matter of interpretation of her actions, or personal feelings. It's a matter of the Constitution. It wouldn't matter if she'd confessed. She's not guilty until pronounced guilty in court.

JMO
Edit: Typos, missing words

 

[BeckyF]

I’m no expert, but it appears to me that the video recording was required by law and that same law requires that the video goes to all parties. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2016a_019_signed.pdf
I found the bill text on this page: Videotape Mental Condition Evaluations | Colorado General Assembly
It does say that if the psychiatrist deems the video recording harmful to the defendant (mentally or physically) before or during they recording they can decide not to record/stop recording and note it contemporaneously in report with explanation. Any partial recording and report would still need to go to the prosecution and the court.

Based on this, it seems to me that any recording made should be shared with all parties by law. I guess the defense will argue it is harmful to LS so should not have been recorded in the first place. The law seems to leave that determination of harm to the psychiatrist as well as the responsibility not to record if it is harmful. I can’t imagine the psychiatrist will now say that they continued to record even though they felt it was harmful to LS. Sounds unlikely to be a successful defense tactic but they are doing their job. JMO

Thank you so much!

 

[BeckyF]

Wow. Good research work @MoeInVA.

But that bill/law doesn't apply here, I don't believe.

In the research note (from your link) it is stated (bold added by me) "The bill does not apply to competency evaluations, which determine, prior to entering a plea in a criminal case, whether a defendant is competent to proceed."

It appears the bill only applies to "insanity" and "impaired mental condition" evals when either of those is asserted by the defense. Those are really a different kettle of fish.

One thing that makes competency evals a bit different is that the state can call for one of those (unlike the above kinds of evals.)

I'm not an attorney but calling for a competency eval could be a way for an unscrupulous DA to make a defendant answer questions. So he/she being entitled to a videotape of the eval would seem kind of screwy.
JMO

Thank you for this information. It seems it is somewhat complicated. I guess this is why the judge is deciding whether the recording was warranted or not. JMO but even if the state has to redo the entire evaluation with no recording AND the defense hires someone to do their own competency evaluation, LS will be found competent.

 

[Seattle1]

She is a complete problem for the state she won’t shut up

The state loves that she won't stop talking! Her defense, no so much.

 

[Seattle1]

I would get as close as I have to I’m not afraid of her

I forgot what I was going to say.

 

[Seattle1]

Lance Benzel[URL='https://twitter.com/lancebenzel']@lancebenzel[/URL]

#LeteciaStauch's second competency eval will be performed by Dr. Jackie Grimmett of Colorado Springs. This eval will consider whether def. has a "rational understanding" of case against her, and whether she can assist in her own defense. #GannonStauch

12:48 PM · Sep 8, 2020·

 

[Seattle1]

Lance Benzel[URL='https://twitter.com/lancebenzel']@lancebenzel[/URL]

Judge Werner says his gag order isn't meant to "interfere" with requirements of open records laws. Says his order doesn't bar
@EPCSheriff
from considering information request. County attorney says sheriff will consider media information request. #GannonStauch
12:47 PM · Sep 8, 2020·

Lance Benzel@lancebenzel

The upshot is, I asked
@EPCSheriff
for information concerning #LeteciaStauch's claims she was abused in jail. I wanted to know if she filed official complaints. Defense wants judge to bar
@EPCSheriff
from releasing info to me, saying it could prevent LS from getting fair trial.
12:43 PM · Sep 8, 2020·

Lance Benzel@lancebenzel

Now an El Paso County attorney is asking judge to clarify limits of his gag order on case, as it applies to
@EPCSheriff
. This relates to an information request by The Gazette -- me, actually -- and another outlet.
@csgazette
#GannonStauch
12:40 PM · Sep 8, 2020·

 

[MoeInVA]

Thank you for this information. It seems it is somewhat complicated. I guess this is why the judge is deciding whether the recording was warranted or not. JMO but even if the state has to redo the entire evaluation with no recording AND the defense hires someone to do their own competency evaluation, LS will be found competent.

I will repeat that I am no expert (important caveat) but I 100% agree. JMO The defense is doing their job to buy time and protect their client from scrutiny but this is all just time wasting nonsense. Necessary for a fair justice system, but used as stall tactics here and in many cases. So be it. I believe in a fair justice system. Protections are important. Her time will come.