breach of promise

[cynic]

I have some questions for those of you who know this stuff better:

-who knew about the indictment besides the jurors and Hunter?I am interested whether the R's attorney's knew about the result
-if CB wins what exactly will be made public?what exactly will be released? (what kind of information)

TIA:seeya:

None of the Ramsey attorneys should have *cough* (legally) *cough* known the result.
At least the following people would have legally known the result.

Alex Hunter
Bill Wise
Mary Lacy
Stan Garnett
Mike Kane
Mitch Morrissey
Bruce Levin
Mark Beckner
James Kolar
Tom Bennett
Tom Wickman,
Michael Everett
Thomas Trujillo
Jane Harmer
Judge Roxanne Bailin
and, of course, the jurors.


The document cited by Eileenhawkeye is an extensive Pennsylvania GJ report. The law in Colorado is different.
(Actually, Connecticut and Pennsylvania have abolished the use of grand juries to return indictments, but kept the grand jury in only investigative role.)
The jury returned a true bill of indictment and therefore did not prepare a report.
A true bill of indictment does contain a reasonable amount of detail but I would suspect that the document in question is no more than four or five pages long.
The following is from the Colorado Revised Statutes
16­5­205.5. Grand jury reports. (1) IN ANY CASE IN WHICH A GRAND JURY DOES NOT RETURN AN INDICTMENT, THE GRAND JURY MAY PREPARE OR ASK TO BE PREPARED A REPORT OF ITS FINDINGS IF THE GRAND JURY DETERMINES THAT PREPARATION AND RELEASE OF A REPORT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (5) OF THIS SECTION. THE DETERMINATION TO PREPARE AND RELEASE A REPORT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION MUST BE MADE BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THE NUMBER OF JURORS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO RETURN AN INDICTMENT. THE REPORT SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY CERTIFICATION THAT THE GRAND JURY HAS DETERMINED THAT RELEASE OF THE REPORT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (5) OF THIS SECTION.

Here is the true bill of indictment from the infamous Midyette case. The 15 page grand jury indictment is as long as it is because of multiple charges.
It does give us some idea of what to expect in terms of the level of detail released in an indictment.


DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
Court Address: Boulder County Justice Center
1777 Sixth Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Court Phone: (303) 441-3750
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
VS.
ALEXANDER JAY MIDYETTE, D.O.B. 6/13/79
MOLLY IRENE MIDYETTE, D.O.B 9/23/78
Defendant(s)

Attorney Name: Mary T. Lacy, #15091 Case No: 07CR918
District Attorney
P.O. Box 471
Boulder, CO 80306
Attorney Phone: (303) 441-3700
Attorney Fax: (303) 441-4703
Attorney E-mail: mlacy@co.boulder.co.us

Division: TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRAND JURY INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE: 7(7)(a)(l) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Alexander Midyette)
COUNT TWO: (7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)- (Alexander Midyette). (7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Alexander Midyette)
COUNT THREE: (7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)- (Alexander Midyette). (7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Alexander Midyette)
COUNT FOUR: (Alexander Midyette)
COUNT FIVE: (7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)' (Molly Midyette)
COUNT SIX: : CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6—401(1)(a),(7)(a)(I) (CLASS 2 FELONY)(Molly Midyette)CHILD ABUSE RESULTING 1N DEACHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-401(l)(a),CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-401(1)(a),CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S._ 18-6-401(1)(a),CI-I]LD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-4OI(I)(a),exam) (CLASS 2 FELONY) -TH, C.R.S. -18-6—401(1)(a),
COUNT SEVEN: CHILD ABUSE RESULTING 1N DEATH, C.R.S. 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(l) (CLASS 2 FELON Y)(Molly Midyette)


TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRAND JURY INDICTMENT
Of the 2006-2007 term of the Boulder District Court, in the year 2007. The grand jurors
chosen, selected, and sworn in and for the County of Boulder, in the name and by the authority the People of the State of Colorado, upon their oaths, present the following described acts, all done contrary to the form of statutes in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado, as stated in the counts attached hereto:

COUNT ONE
That on. or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado ALEXANDER MIDYE'I'I'E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly caused an injury to, the life or health of a child, namely: Jason Jay Midyette, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(1), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony),and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

COUNT TWO
That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder,‘ State of Colorado ALEXANDER MDYE'ITE unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted 'a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in' violation of section 18—6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(l), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

COUNT THREE
That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado ALEXANDER MIDYE'ITE unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries to a child, namely: Jason Jay Midyette that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-. 40.1(1)(a),(7)(a)(I), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.'

COUNT FOUR
That on or about February 24, 2006 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado ALEXANDER MHDYETTE unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(I), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

COUNT FIVE
That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado MOLLY MIDYETI'E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a),(7)(a)(l), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

COUNT SIX
That on or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado MOLLY MIDYETI‘E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly engaged in a continued pattern of .conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries to a child, namely: Jason Jay Midyette that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6—401(l)(a),(7)_(a)(l), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

COUNT SEVEN
That on or about February 24, 2006 to March 3, 2006 in, or triable in, the County of Boulder, State of Colorado MOLLY MIDYE'I‘T'E unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly permitted a child namely: Jason Jay Midyette, to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poseda threat of injury to, the life or health of the child, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18—6—401(1)(a),(7)(a)(1), C.R.S. (Class Two Felony), and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.

The offenses charged in counts one through seven of the indictment were committed in the following manner:
1. On December 17, 2005 Jason Jay Midyette was born at Boulder Community Hospital Foothills. Alexander Midyette was the father and Molly Midyette was the mother. Jason was delivered by cesarean section and at the time of delivery the gestational age was 36 weeks and one day. By the date of Jason’s release on December 24, 2005 all health issues were successfully resolved. At the date of Jason’s release, he was a healthy infant.
2. Upon Jason’s release from Boulder Community Hospital Foothills, Alex, Molly, and Jason resided at 102 Barbara Street, in the city of Louisville, Boulder County, Colorado. The parents stayed home to care for Jason until early February 2006. When the parents returned to work, Molly worked three days a week and Alex would work two days a week. During his life, the parents exclusively cared for Jason, with the exception of one occasion when Jason was left in the care of his paternal grandparents for several hours on the evening of February 19, 2006.
3. The parents attended four well baby exams conducted by Dr. Jill Siegfried, Jason’s general practitioner, throughout Jason’s life. Both parents accompanied Jason to each doctor’s visit. At the first exam, three days after Jason’s discharge, be had gained nearly a pound. At his second well baby exam, three weeks later, the only Concern noted by Dr.Siegfried, was a failure to gain weight. After Dr. Siegfried initiated a feeding program, -Jason resumed his weight gain. Although the parents were asked if they had any concerns at every visit, they never expressed any concerns about Jason to Dr. Siegfried, with the exception of Jason being gassy. All of the appointments were routine well baby exams, and not the result of any medical concerns expressed by the parents.
4. On February 15, 2006, Dr. Siegfried examined Jason and noted that he was a normal,- healthy two-month old infant. Because of this, Jason was given his two-month vaccinations. The parents again expressed no concerns about Jason at this visit.
5. On the night of February 23, 2006 the parents agreed that Alex would get up for Jason’s feedings because Molly had to work the following day. Jason woke up at 2:00 am. and5:00 am. on February 24, 2006 and fed normally. After the 5:00 am. feeding, Alex and Jason fell asleep together on the couch. Alex and Jason next awoke at 7:00 am. and Alex changed Jason’s diaper. During the diaper change, Jason had a crying spell, appeared to hold his breath, made “funny” noises, and stiffened up. Alex called Molly into the room to observe Jason. Molly left for work at Midyette Architecture/Pearl Street Mall Properties in Boulder Colorado. Alex put Jason down for a nap and Jason woke up around 11:00 am. Alex tried to feed Jason but he wouldn’t eat. Alex gave Jason a bath. During the bath Jason tensed and released his body, both arms went up into the air and were straight and stiff, and his back was very arched. Alex described Jason as “almost standing up.” After the bath, Alex laid Jason down and could hear him moaning on the baby monitor. Alex called Molly at work at approximately 11:37 am.
6. Molly arrived at work at approximately 9:00 to 9:30 am. In the morning While in a conversation with two co-workers, Molly expressed her concern that Jason was not doing well and described various symptoms. Molly described Jason clenching his fists when he awoke, tightening his body, shaking his fists, having breathing problems, and crunching up his face while his eyes were squeezed together. She also used the word “seizure” to describe Jason’s behavior on February 24, 2006. Molly also said that as soon as she got off work she was planning to take Jason to the doctor. Molly stated that she was trying to get an appointment for Jason to go to the doctor that afternoon because of her concerns. Molly further stated that she could not figure out what was wrong with Jason and that she wished she could. The co-workers described Molly as being really upset, concerned and/or worried when she was describing Jason’s condition to them. In an earlier conversation on February 13 or 14, 2006, Molly told one of these co-workers that she had concerns about seizure-like behavior by Jason.
7. The conversation on the morning of February 24, 2006, was between 9:00 and 9:30 am. according to one of the co-workers however the other co-worker believed the conversation occurred around lunchtime.
8. A co-worker also overheard Molly discussing her concerns about Jason with J. Nold Midyette, Alex’s father, that morning. J. Nold advised Molly that perhaps they should change doctors.
9. After Molly returned home to the residence at 102 Barbara Street in Louisville, she called Dr. Siegfried’s office at 12:30 p.rn., leaving a message with the receptionist that Jason was, “out of it, lethargic, stiffening his arms and legs, moaning and just not feeling well.”After checking with Dr. Siegfried, a member of the office staff called back at 12:52 p.111.and instructed Molly that if Molly thought Jason needed immediate medical attention she should consider taking Jason to Urgent-Care or the emergency room. Molly seemed calm and stated that, “We really want to see Dr. Siegfried.” A double-booked appointment was made for 3:30 pm. that afternoon, the earliest available time. Between the time Molly returned home and the 3:30 p.m. doctor’s appointment, both Molly and Alex remained at home and could hear Jason continuing to moan.
10. Molly and Alex arrived at Dr. Siegfried’s office at 3:30 p.m. An LPN described Jason as lirnp, with his eyes half—open, and not moving. The LPN said that when Jason was- moved, it looked like he was going to cry, then he would moan and fall asleep. The LPN said she had never seen a baby like that before and immediately called Dr. Siegfried to the room.
11. Dr. Siegfried saw Jason, and indicated that Jason had a bulging fontanelle, was grey, limp, and lethargic. Jason’s condition scared her and she immediately called another physician within the office to come and look at him. Dr. Siegfried’s medical records state the “Chief Complaints and Concerns” on 2/24/06 at 3:32 p.m. included Jason “Not waking up or eating, baby being limp and lethargic, won’t track movement.” The records also state that, ‘This happened after he had a diaper change and he held his breath until he passed out. Fine yesterday. Not eating normally today only groaning.”Dr. Siegfried next advised the parents to take Jason to Boulder Community Hospital Foothills as he was much too ill to be treated in her office.
12. Alex and Molly drove Jason to Boulder Community Hospital Foothills, arriving just before 4:00 p.m. Dr. David Jones, the emergency room doctor, immediately contacted Dr. Stephen Fries, a pediatrician, to assist with Jason. The physicians noted that Jason was posturing and unresponsive, with his right pupil fixed and dilated, indicating brain, injury. A CT scan was ordered and the results showed a skull fracture, mixed chronic and acute subdural hematomas, and a complete loss of gray-white interface involving the cerebrum. X-rays taken indicated a number of fractures in various stages of healing. These fractures included the left parietal skull fracture, a right clavicle fracture, a left forearm fracture, corner fractures of both femurs, and fractures on both ends of the left tibia. Boulder Community Hospital Foothills nurse Susan Spielrnan asked the parents if Jason had been dropped, fallen, fallen off of a changing table, or if he had hit his head on something. The parents replied that nothing like that had happened, and “nobody had dropped it.” They added, “The baby was fine twelve hours ago and got progressively worse.” Nurse Spielman heard Molly make the comment, “I knew I shouldn’t have gone to work today.” Radiologist Technician Tina Gerhardt heard Molly say, “I knew I .shouldn’t have went back to work.” Dr. Fries also overheard Molly muttering, “I should never have gone back to work. BCH Radiologist Technician Kristy Rouse heard one of the parents state that the, “Child had been vomiting for the past two nights,” and that he was “not acting like himself that day.”
13. Dr. Fries informed Molly and Alex of Jason’s condition, including the fractures. Alex' became angry and repeatedly stated that there were no bruises.
14. Jason was transported by Flight For Life Ground Ambulance to Children’s Hospital. X- rays revealed additional fractures that were in various stages of healing. These additional fractures included numerous rib fractures, fractures to the hands and feet and additional arm and leg corner fractures. CT scans performed at Children’s showed that Jason’s brain injuries were getting worse and portions of the brain were dead. Jason’s brain injury progressively worsened over the next several days.
15. During the course of Jason’s treatment, Molly and Alex made statements at Children’s Hospital denying that Jason had been dropped or had fallen. The parents indicated that Jason had been fine the evening of February 23, 2006. At Children’s Hospital on February 24, 2006 Molly told Dr. Antonia Chiesa that Jason’s left arm did not move very well. The following day both parents told Stephanie Stronks, Children's Hospital social worker, that Jason always had a "limp" left arm, it just hung there. She remembered them saying that they affectionately called Jason something like, "limp arm" or "lefty."
16. Molly and Alex told Dr. Meghan Norton at Children’s Hospital and D83 social worker Tami Bee, that Jason had vomited three times since Tuesday, February 21, 2006. Molly and Alex also told Bee that on February 21“, Jason had screamed so long he lost his breath, appeared to stiffen and had been doing some twitching, tensing and releasing of his body since that date. On February 21, 2006 Molly had a postpartum medical appointment with Dr. Siegfried that she attended alone while Alex took care of Jason. At that visit Molly told Dr. Siegfried that Jason was doing well.
17. On February 27, 2006 J .M. Stanlee West—Watt was appointed as Jason’s Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). From February 27 through March 3, 2006, Ms. West-Watt received information from Jason’s family that there were times that he cried a lot and that he had some breathing difficulties. Alex and/or Molly then told Ms. West-Watt that Jason was crying more than normal and he needed comforting. In fact Alex and/or Molly expressed concerns about Jason’s rigidity and that his crying was becoming more difficult to soothe.
18. The withdrawal of life support began on March 1, 2006 and Jason died March 3, 2006. Dr. John Meyer, a forensic pathologist associated with the Boulder County Coroner’s Office, performed an autopsy on Jason’s body March 4, 2006.
19. The Boulder County Coroner’s Office ruled Jason Midyette’s death a homicide. Dr.Meyer determined that the cause of death of this 10-week old infant was blunt force craniocerebral injuries. Dr. Meyer sent the brain for neuropathologic examination to Dr. Ross Reichard, Director of Neuropathology at the University of New Mexico Hospital and Assistant Professor of Pathology at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. In his report Dr.Reichard notes that, “neuropathological examination revealed evidence of traumatic injuries of varying ages.” Dr. Reichard determined that Jason had contusions on the right and left temporal lobes of his brain. These contusions were older than other hemorrhages found in Jason’s brain. Dr. Meyer was able to confirm a number of the fractures previously identified by both Boulder Community Hospital Foothills and Children’s Hospital. .During the course of the autopsy Dr. Meyer identified three previously undetected fractures located in the right hand, foot and rib.
20. Dr. Thomas Hay, Pediatric Radiologist, The Children’s Hospital and Associate Clinical Professor of Radiology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center reviewed CT scans and skeletal surveys from Boulder Community Hospital Foothills and Children’s Hospital. Dr. Hay noted that Jason’s fractures were in various stages of healing, with the oldest fractures being the right clavicle and the left forearm. Dr. Hay identified the skull fracture as acute, showing no signs of healing, and said that such fractures in infants are caused by an impact. He said rib fractures have to have a known mechanism of injury and are commonly caused by abusive squeezing. Dr. Hay said, corner or bucket handle fractures, which were observed on the long bones of the arms and legs, are caused by twisting or pulling forces applied near the end of a bone, or from violent shaking. Dr. Hay said hand and foot fractures are .very uncommon, and are likely the result of a direct blow.
21. Sara Vernet is friends with Alex and Molly and has known them for about thirteen years. In early to mid—January 2006, Sara said she saw a dime-sized bruise in the area of Jason’s forehead. Sara observed the bruise on Jason’s head and asked Alex about the bruise. Alex responded that he felt bad because he had been walking, slipped, and bumped Jason’s head into a wooden dining room chair. Alex said that the incident had occurred that day, a couple hours before Sara’s arrival. Molly was not home on the day of this incident. Sara later told Molly about this bruise.
22. On February 24, 2006 at 12:57 pm, Sara talked to Molly on the phone. During the conversation, Molly told Sara that Jason was really sick, and something was wrong with him. Molly described Jason as lethargic and making weird sounds. Molly explained, “something is wrong with him,” “I’ve never seen him like this,” and “something is different with him.” Sara said that Molly sounded concerned and very scared in the conversation.
23. Dancer Vernet visited Molly and Alex at their-home of 102 Barbara in Louisville during the first week of January 2006, on either a Tuesday or a Wednesday afternoon. This was the only time that she saw Jason. Dancer recounted a 5-second incident where Jason, while awake, turned red in color like he was going to the bathroom. He was also clenching his fists. Molly told Dancer that she did not know why Jason was doing this, but that “he did that sometimes.” On Tuesday, January 3, 2006, Jason had a doctor’s appointment at 4:30 pm. for his circumcision. N 0 concerns were voiced by Molly or Alex to Dr. Siegfried.
24. Josh Logan has been a friend of Alex’s for three years, and they have been close friends for the last one and a half years. Josh believed that Alex and Molly returned to work after Jason’s birth in the second week of February 2006. Alex worked Tuesday and Wednesday and Molly worked Monday, Thursday, and Friday. The non-working parent cared for Jason. Josh was not aware of any other care provider.
25. In early to mid-January 2006, Josh observed a bruise in the area of Jason’s temple. The bruise was between the eye and the ear. The bruise was “typical bruise color”, possibly bluish black and the size of a nickel. Josh stated that right when he entered the home Alex told him about the bruise before Josh even saw Jason. Josh described Alex as very nervous when he told Josh that he had been Carrying Jason into the kitchen when the phone rang. Alex indicated that when he turned around to get the phone he bumped Jason’s head on a kitchen chair causing the bruise. Alex said the incident had taken place a couple days earlier. The bruise lasted about a week. Josh had the impression from Alex’s description that Alex and Jason were alone at the time of the incident and that it was Molly who had called on the phone.
26. Josh remembered several conversations prior to February 24, 2006 in which Alex and Molly discussed Jason ‘flexing his muscles” and described his arms and legs being tense for a second.
27. Josh talked to Alex on the phone several times on February 24, 2006. Josh believed that in an initial call he could hear Jason crying in the background. Alex said that Jason was sick and didn’t seem right, and they were taking him to the doctor. In an interview with Detective Steele July 27, 2006, Josh stated that Alex told him they were taking Jason to the doctor because he was a bit lethargic and wasn’t eating.
28. In late January or early February 2006, Molly showed her mother, Jane Bowers, a very light colored bruise that was located on Jason’s forehead by an eyebrow. Molly told Jane that the bruise occurred while Alex was holding Jason as he bent down to pick something up off the floor in the dining room, and bumped Jason’s head on a chair when he stood up. Molly further told Jane that she was not home during this incident and that she learned that Jason did not cry,-but his eyes just popped open. Additionally Molly told Jane there was something wrong with Jason’s arm. Molly described Jason’s arm as “it sort of floated.” Further Molly told Jane that she and Alex talked to the doctor about it and showed her the arm. Molly said the doctor examined the arm and referred to it as his “gimpy” arm. Dr. Siegfried said that Molly or Alex never informed her about a problem with Jason’s arm. Jason’s medical records do not reflect any mention of this concern.
29. Kay Midyette is Alex’s mother. Kay Midyette stated that on a morning between February2-7, 2006, Alex called her and said while he was reaching for the cell phone, he bumped Jason’s head on the edge of a table. Kay personally saw a bruise and described it as being located in the middle of Jason’s forehead. It was the size of her little finger, smaller than a dime. The bruise was light yellowish in color and she thought that it lasted a couple of days.
30. Kay said she received a call from Alex sometime prior to February 2, 2006 where Alex expressed concern about bleeding from an injury to Jason’ s gum. Molly later expressed a concern to Kay about a second bleed from the gum when giving him a pacifier. The area of the bleed was described as the front center area of the upper gum. Alex and Molly advised Kay they had talked to the doctor and the area of the gum had been examined by the doctor using a metal probe and the doctor indicated that it was not a problem as it did not go all the way through. Dr. Siegfried stated that at no point was the issue of a gum bleed raised by Molly or Alex, and she said she had never used a metal probe to examine any infants’ gums.
31. At the time of autopsy Dr. Meyer noted that Jason’s frenulum was rudimentary, explaining it was not present or merely a small stub. Dr. Meyer explained that the frenulum is a small fold of tissue centered inside the upper lip that connects the upper lip-to the gum. Dr. Meyer said the frenulum is examined in infant deaths, because the frenulum is sometimes torn in child abuse cases. Dr. Fries said that an injury to a child’s frenulum is usually caused by forcibly pushing a bottle or a pacifier into a baby’s mouth. Dr. Chiesa indicated that injuries to the frenulum are common in child abuse cases.
32. As to the counts charged in the indictment, count one asserts that Alex Midyette during the time period charged, knowingly or recklessly caused the injuries that resulted in Jason Midyette’s death.
33. Count two regarding Alex Midyette, and corresponding count five regarding Molly Midyette, asserts that the actions and inaction of the defendants during the time period charged, knowingly or recklessly permitted Jason Midyette to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of him, that resulted in the death of Jason Midyette.
34. Count three regarding Alex Midyette, and corresponding count six regarding Molly Midyette, asserts that during the time period charged, the defendants knowingly or recklessly engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment (which includes inaction), or an accumulation of injuries to Jason Midyette that resulted in his death.
35. Count four regarding Alex Midyette and corresponding count seven regarding Molly Midyette involve the actions and inaction of the defendants on February 24, 2006 which culminated in the admission of Jason to Children’s Hospital, his placement on life support, and his eventual death on March 3, 2006.

ALEXANDER MIDYETTE

AS TO COUNT ONE:
TRUE BILL
NO TRUE BILL

AS TO COUNT TWO:
TRUE BILL
NO TRUE BILL

AS TO COUNT THREE:
TRUE BILL
NO TRUE BILL

AS TO COUNT FOUR:
TRUE BILL
NO TRUE BILL


I, Stephan K Elliot, the Foreperson of the 2006-2007 Boulder County Grand Jury, do hereby swear and affirm that each and every True Bill returned in this Indictment by the 2006-2007 Boulder County Grand Jury was arrived at after deliberation and with the assent and agreement to the existence of probable cause by at least nine members of the 2006-2007 Boulder County Grand Jury


Submitted and sworn to before me 1n the County of Boulder, State of Colorado, this 8th day of May, 2007
_____________
NOTARY PUBLIC


Respectfully submitted and approved for filing this __ day of May, 2007
MARY T. LACY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Kenneth E. Kupfner #29924
Chief Deputy-District Attorney

K Colette Cribari #13524
Deputy-District Attorney

Robert S. Shapiro #26869
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Boulder County District Attorney’s Office
1177 6th Street
Boulder, CO 80303
(303)-441-3700

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfi...te/07CR918.pdf

 

[UKGuy]

FW must be in attendance because an indictment exists. Breach of Promise is just legalese for we agreed. Its a legal tactic, similar to Terms and Conditions, etc, signing them does not preclude consequent legal action, e.g. a class action.

Behind the door meetings must mean horse trading is taking place, i.e. some other case wins or loses.

The Judge might even make it a Supreme Court issue, since it relates to GJ proceeedings, thus allowing it to be kicked into the long grass?


.

 

[otg]

I have some questions for those of you who know this stuff better:

-who knew about the indictment besides the jurors and Hunter?I am interested whether the R's attorney's knew about the result
-if CB wins what exactly will be made public?what exactly will be released? (what kind of information)

TIA:seeya:

Interesting questions, maddie. I’m certainly no legal expert, but you and I both know that the people directly involved in the GJ proceedings would definitely be aware of the result. That would include the GJ members, Hunter, and Kane. (The five alternate jurors were dismissed at the end of the first year term, before the term for the rest of the GJ was extended six more months.) So here are at least 14 people who knew the result for certain. The GJ members were too afraid by threat of arrest to say anything to anyone, Hunter was too ashamed to tell anyone, and Kane has too much integrity to say anything -- even when being taunted by Wood on LKL through misrepresentation of the facts.

But I can’t imagine that other lawyers who worked on the case (and in the DA’s office) wouldn’t also know the result. So that would include Keenan (later to become Lacy), McGuire, Morrisey, Levin, DeMuth, and Hofstrom. I would guess that list should probably include Wise. So now we’ve added six (maybe seven) others who probably knew the outcome. And we know about the “cozy” (some would say “incestuous”) relationships these lawyers had with others in various law firm associations, real estate and business deals, professional association memberships, country club acquaintances, etc. So as secrets go, consider that even half of some of these people who knew might have said something to someone else. And once a secret is told, it’s no longer a secret. (Hmmmm. Who said that?)

I don’t know about anyone on the LE end of the investigation. Whether or not any of them knew the results I’ll have to pass on -- but it’s possible.

The Ramseys fully expected to be indicted while they were hiding out at the Archuleta household. They did know ahead of time when the GJ was finishing their work, because they came back to Boulder to give themselves up when the arrest warrant came out. So this tells me they had been tipped off at least to some extent what was going on with the GJ. They had even made arrangements for JR’s brother to get guardianship of BR in that event. I suspect they had been told by one of their lawyers that their sources inside the GJ indicated they were working on a true bill for charges to be brought. But that was before Hunter made the public announcement that he didn’t have the cojones to pursue it in court. Instead, he decided to let the statute of limitations run out in less than three months on each of the only charges that could be brought against them.

I can’t help but think the result of the GJ’s determination was probably an “open secret” amongst nearly every lawyer in the city and county of Boulder. Eventually, someone said something to someone else, and then finally someone who heard the secret said something to Charlie Brennan.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

ETA: I posted this before I saw cynic had already answered it (better than I could of course). Another case worth looking at for similarities besides Midyette is Aaron Thompson. I'll get together some links in case anyone is interested in looking at it. Thompson was convicted of killing his daughter whose body has never been found.

From the ABC affilliate:

The charges (60 of them) against Thompson listed in the indictment include: child abuse resulting in death -- knowingly or recklessly, child abuse resulting in death -- criminal negligence, three counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse resulting in death, two counts of accessory to a crime, false reporting, concealing a death, abuse of a corpse, seven counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, nine counts of child abuse resulting in injury, and numerous other lesser charges.

 

[otg]

BTW, more pictures of people in the court room yesterday, including one of Marianne (Mimi) Wesson -- who is quickly becoming one of my heroes, and who played herself in the movie PMPT:

http://photos.dailycamera.com/News/Lawsuit-Filed-for-the-Release/32477032_qLF6g6

 

[dodie20]

FW in court

Can't help but wonder how this pic makes JR feel. After all these years, here he is, still waiting for answers.

 

[otg]

​

From CBI:

On November 14, 2005, 6 year old Aarone Thompson was reported missing. Further investigation revealed she died sometime between May 2002 and November 2005, her body has yet to be recovered. On September 28, 2009 the Father, Aaron Thompson, was convicted of causing the death of Aarone. Mr. Thompson was sentenced to 114 years in prison. This case remains visible to the public in the hopes of one day finding the remains Aarone Thompson. ***Anyone with information is asked to contact the Aurora Police Department.

Even when the judge sentenced him to 114 years in prison, Thompson refused to say where he had buried his daughter’s body. Thompson’s common-law wife, Shely Lowe died before she too could be charged. The 60-count GJ indictment can be read here.

And the reason the GJ indictment can be read is because The Denver Post and The Associated Press sued to have the entire indictment released. Previously, the “factual allegations” of the indictment had been redacted, which explained exactly what the GJ found had been done to little Aarone. The Colorado Supreme Court sided with the public in this case and allowed it all to be released but the names of any victims of sexual abuse (Aarone had eight siblings living in the house with her when she was tortured and killed). The horrors that this child, and her brothers and sisters, experienced is unbelievable. And much, if not most, of what was done to the kids was done by Shely Lowe.

Here is a little information from thedenverchannel.com:

The charges against Thompson listed in the indictment include: child abuse resulting in death -- knowingly or recklessly, child abuse resulting in death -- criminal negligence, three counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse resulting in death, two counts of accessory to a crime, false reporting, concealing a death, abuse of a corpse, seven counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, nine counts of child abuse resulting in injury, and numerous other lesser charges.

The indictment alleges that Aaron Thompson "unlawfully and feloniously rendered assistance to Shely Lowe, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of Shely Lowe for the commission of a crime, knowing that person committed the crime of child abuse resulting in death."

The charges listed against Thompson are in an indictment which was released Thursday afternoon. The information used to form the indictment was removed from the document before it was made public.

Not all of the charges contained in the indictment involve Aarone Thompson, officials said. They would no(t) elaborate.

But here’s the interesting part that relates to Charlie Brennan’s suit, and how it might relate to the Ramsey GJ. The following is from the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on release of the GJ indictment (BBM):

The CCJRA (Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act) defines criminal justice records as documentary materials of criminal justice agencies. See § 24-72-302(4). Thus, criminal justice records include:

[A]ll books, papers, cards, photographs, tapes, recordings, or other documentary materials, regardless of form or characteristics, that are made, maintained, or kept by any criminal justice agency in the state for use in the exercise of functions required or authorized by law or administrative rule, including but not limited to the results of chemical biological substance testing . . . .
​

Id. (emphasis added). However, the CCJRA distinguishes between two types of criminal justice records -- records of official actions and other criminal justice records -- and prescribes different regimens of public access to those records. See §§ 24-72-301(2), -303(1), -304(1); see alsoBackground Info. Servs., 994 P.2d at 427.

Generally, the CCJRA mandates disclosure of records of official actions. Pursuant to section 24-72-302(7), “official action” includes an indictment. § 24-72-302(7). Records of official actions “shall be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times, except as provided in [the CCJRA] or as otherwise provided by law.” § 24-72-303(1) (emphasis added). Thus, a record of official action must be available for public inspection unless one of the two exceptions applies: (1) non-disclosure is required by the CCJRA, or (2) non-disclosure is required by other law. See id. Consequently, the CCJRA does not grant any criminal justice agency, including a court, any discretion as to whether to disclose a record of official action in its entirety, in part, or not at all. See id.

In contrast, disclosure of other criminal justice records is discretionary. Section 24-72-304(1) provides that “[e]xcept for records of official actions which must be maintained and released pursuant to [the CCJRA], all criminal justice records, at the discretion of the official custodian, may be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times . . . .” § 24-72-304(1) (emphasis added). In sum, while the CCJRA leaves access to other criminal justice records to the discretion of the criminal justice agencies that are the official custodians of those records, it mandates that records of official actions be available for public inspection, subject to exceptions set forth in the CCJRA or by other law. See§§ 24-72-301, -303(1); see alsoHarris, 123 P.3d at 1171; Background Info. Servs., 994 P.2d at 427 (recognizing the distinction between records of official actions and other criminal justice records).

Such an exception to the mandatory disclosure of records of official actions is provided by section 24-72-304(4). Specifically, section 24-72-304(4)(a) requires that the identity of sexual assault victims be deleted from criminal justice records prior to disclosure:

The name and any other information that would identify any victim of sexual assault or of alleged sexual assault or attempted sexual assault or alleged attempted sexual assault shall be deleted from any criminal justice record prior to the release of such record to any individual or agency other than a criminal justice agency when such record bears the notation “SEXUAL ASSAULT” prescribed by this subsection (4).
​

§ 24-72-304(4)(a) (emphasis added). Therefore, a criminal justice agency releasing a record of official action or other criminal justice record bearing the notation “SEXUAL ASSAULT” must remove identifying information of any sexual assault victims. Id.

So in this decision, the Colorado Supreme Court made a distinction between “records of official actions and other criminal justice records”. “Records of official actions” would be a GJ’s true bill or indictment -- and must be released. “Other criminal justice records” would be, in the case of the GJ, witness statements/testimony, results of forensic testing, investigators’ reports, etc. -- and can be released at the discretion of the justice agency having custody of them.

Again, from above:
“Generally, the CCJRA mandates disclosure of records of official actions. Pursuant to section 24-72-302(7), “official action” includes an indictment.”



(otg rests his case)

 

[Linda7NJ]

​

From CBI:
Even when the judge sentenced him to 114 years in prison, Thompson refused to say where he had buried his daughter’s body. Thompson’s common-law wife, Shely Lowe died before she too could be charged. The 60-count GJ indictment can be read here.

And the reason the GJ indictment can be read is because The Denver Post and The Associated Press sued to have the entire indictment released. Previously, the “factual allegations” of the indictment had been redacted, which explained exactly what the GJ found had been done to little Aarone. The Colorado Supreme Court sided with the public in this case and allowed it all to be released but the names of any victims of sexual abuse (Aarone had eight siblings living in the house with her when she was tortured and killed). The horrors that this child, and her brothers and sisters, experienced is unbelievable. And much, if not most, of what was done to the kids was done by Shely Lowe.

Here is a little information from thedenverchannel.com:
But here’s the interesting part that relates to Charlie Brennan’s suit, and how it might relate to the Ramsey GJ. The following is from the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on release of the GJ indictment (BBM):

The CCJRA (Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act) defines criminal justice records as documentary materials of criminal justice agencies. See § 24-72-302(4). Thus, criminal justice records include:

[A]ll books, papers, cards, photographs, tapes, recordings, or other documentary materials, regardless of form or characteristics, that are made, maintained, or kept by any criminal justice agency in the state for use in the exercise of functions required or authorized by law or administrative rule, including but not limited to the results of chemical biological substance testing . . . .
​

Id. (emphasis added). However, the CCJRA distinguishes between two types of criminal justice records -- records of official actions and other criminal justice records -- and prescribes different regimens of public access to those records. See §§ 24-72-301(2), -303(1), -304(1); see alsoBackground Info. Servs., 994 P.2d at 427.

Generally, the CCJRA mandates disclosure of records of official actions. Pursuant to section 24-72-302(7), “official action” includes an indictment. § 24-72-302(7). Records of official actions “shall be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times, except as provided in [the CCJRA] or as otherwise provided by law.” § 24-72-303(1) (emphasis added). Thus, a record of official action must be available for public inspection unless one of the two exceptions applies: (1) non-disclosure is required by the CCJRA, or (2) non-disclosure is required by other law. See id. Consequently, the CCJRA does not grant any criminal justice agency, including a court, any discretion as to whether to disclose a record of official action in its entirety, in part, or not at all. See id.

In contrast, disclosure of other criminal justice records is discretionary. Section 24-72-304(1) provides that “[e]xcept for records of official actions which must be maintained and released pursuant to [the CCJRA], all criminal justice records, at the discretion of the official custodian, may be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times . . . .” § 24-72-304(1) (emphasis added). In sum, while the CCJRA leaves access to other criminal justice records to the discretion of the criminal justice agencies that are the official custodians of those records, it mandates that records of official actions be available for public inspection, subject to exceptions set forth in the CCJRA or by other law. See§§ 24-72-301, -303(1); see alsoHarris, 123 P.3d at 1171; Background Info. Servs., 994 P.2d at 427 (recognizing the distinction between records of official actions and other criminal justice records).

Such an exception to the mandatory disclosure of records of official actions is provided by section 24-72-304(4). Specifically, section 24-72-304(4)(a) requires that the identity of sexual assault victims be deleted from criminal justice records prior to disclosure:

The name and any other information that would identify any victim of sexual assault or of alleged sexual assault or attempted sexual assault or alleged attempted sexual assault shall be deleted from any criminal justice record prior to the release of such record to any individual or agency other than a criminal justice agency when such record bears the notation “SEXUAL ASSAULT” prescribed by this subsection (4).
​

§ 24-72-304(4)(a) (emphasis added). Therefore, a criminal justice agency releasing a record of official action or other criminal justice record bearing the notation “SEXUAL ASSAULT” must remove identifying information of any sexual assault victims. Id.

So in this decision, the Colorado Supreme Court made a distinction between “records of official actions and other criminal justice records”. “Records of official actions” would be a GJ’s true bill or indictment -- and must be released. “Other criminal justice records” would be, in the case of the GJ, witness statements/testimony, results of forensic testing, investigators’ reports, etc. -- and can be released at the discretion of the justice agency having custody of them.

Again, from above:
“Generally, the CCJRA mandates disclosure of records of official actions. Pursuant to section 24-72-302(7), “official action” includes an indictment.”



(otg rests his case)

It's late, I'm tired .,, what does that all mean? In plain English and in a nutshell ...( Read it once...it didn't sink in)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[otg]

(NOTE: The two bolded lines (by me) are related to the above quoted Colorado Supreme Court decision on the Aaron Thompson indictment.)

DATE FILED: September 18, 2013 3:00 PM
FILING ID: C3C720A191B88
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE
OF COLORADO
Court Address: 1777 6th St.
P. O. Box 4249
Boulder, CO 80306
__________
Plaintiffs:
CHARLIE BRENNAN, an individual; and
REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS, an unincorporated association
COURT USE ONLY
v.
Defendant:
STANLEY L. GARNETT, in his official capacity as the
District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District
__________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Thomas B. Kelley,#1971
Steven D. Zansberg,#26634
Christopher P. Beall,#28536

and

Marianne Wesson,#8222
University of Colorado

COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiffs, Charlie Brennan and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, by and
through their undersigned attorneys, for their Complaint against Defendant Stanley L. Garnett, in
his official capacity as the District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District, allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION
This civil action, brought pursuant to the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act
(?CCJRA?),§ 24-72-301, et seq., C.R.S, seeks to secure access to a certain criminal justice
record from the custodian of the record, District Attorney Stanley L. Garnett (?Garnett?). The
record relates to the investigation by the Office of the District Attorney for the Twentieth
Judicial District and the Boulder Police Department into the death of JonBenét Ramsey on
December 26, 1996. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Garnett has in his custody,
possession, or control a document purporting to be an indictment that was duly voted upon by
the Grand Jury empaneled to investigate the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, and duly signed by the
Grand Jury foreperson, charging John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey with the crime of child abuse
resulting in death, a Class 2 felony, pursuant to § 18-6-401(7)(a)(I), C.R.S., which has not been
officially disclosed to the public. There has been to date no official public acknowledgment of
this act by the grand jury, and no disclosure of the document that resulted. As more fully set
forth below, Plaintiffs seek, under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, the right to
inspect and copy the purported indictment in question, the disclosure of which would not be
contrary to the public interest.

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims herein under the CCJRA.§ 24-72305(7), C.R.S.
2. Plaintiff Charlie Brennan (Brennan) is employed as a reporter for the
newspaper, the Boulder Daily Camera. He has regularly investigated and reported upon the
JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation. Brennan is a person as defined in the CCJRA.§ 2472-
302(9), C.R.S.
3. Plaintiff Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) is an
unincorporated association of reporters and editors that has worked to defend First Amendment
rights and freedom of information interests of the news media since 1970. The RCFP is likewise
a person as defined in the CCJRA. Id.
4. Garnett is the duly elected District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District,
State of Colorado. He is both the ?custodian? and the ?official custodian? of the criminal justice
record at issue in this case. See §§ 24-72-302(5) & (8), C.R.S.
5. The CCJRA affords to any person denied access to inspection of any criminal
justice record the right to apply to the district court in the district wherein the record is found for
an order directing the custodian of such record to show cause why said custodian should not
permit the inspection of the record. A hearing on such application must be held at the earliest
practical time, and,nless the court finds that the denial of inspection was proper, it shall
order the custodian to permit such inspection.?§ 24-72-305(7), C.R.S.

BACKGROUND OF CURRENT CONTROVERSY

6. On December 26, 1996, JonBenét Ramsey, age 6, was found dead in the basement
of her family's home in Boulder, Colorado. An autopsy and initial investigation indicated death
was caused by violent means. Since that occurrence, and continuing until this day, the case has
been the subject of massive publicity, including television appearances by the girl's parents, John
and Patsy Ramsey, and two published books concerning the events of the investigation written
by John Ramsey. To date, no one has been brought to court for criminal responsibility for
JonBenét's death.
7. On August 12, 1998, then-Governor Roy Romer and then-District Attorney for
the Twentieth Judicial District Alex Hunter (?Hunter?) announced that the Ramsey murder case
would be investigated by a Grand Jury to be empaneled by this Court of the Twentieth Judicial
District. Shortly thereafter, that Grand Jury was empaneled, sworn, and charged, and thereafter
supervised by this Court.
8. On information and belief, on a date shortly prior to October 13, 1999, the Grand
Jury voted in favor of an indictment of JonBenét Ramsey's parents, John Ramsey and Patsy
Ramsey, for the crime of child abuse resulting in death, a Class 2 felony pursuant to § 18-6401
(7)(a)(I), C.R.S. Also on information and belief, a written indictment (the Indictment) was
prepared for and signed by the Grand Jury foreperson. However, Hunter elected not to sign the
Indictment, and not to present it to the District Court, but to keep the Indictment secret from the
general public.
9. On October 13, 1999, the Grand Jury investigating the death of JonBenét Ramsey
was discharged, and Hunter announced we believe we do not have sufficient evidence to
warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time. Steven K.
Paulson, No Charges in JonBenet Case, WASH. POST (Oct. 13, 1999),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991013/aponline214802_000.htm .

[FONT=&quot]This announcement left the public with the clear impression that the Grand Jury had
determined not to indict anyone in connection with the death of JonBenét. A true and
correct copy of the October 13, 1999 article is attached as Ex. 1.

[/FONT]CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECORDS REQUEST
THAT GAVE RISE TO THIS LITIGATION

10. On or about March 13, 2013, Brennan sent an e-mail addressed to Garnett
requesting, pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Law,§ 24-72-201, et seq., C.R.S., and the
CCJRA,§ 24-72-301, et seq., C.R.S., the opportunity to inspect and copy records described as:
A true bill, or indictment, returned by the Boulder County Grand Jury in October
1999, pursuant to that body's investigations and deliberations into the December
1996 death of JonBenét Ramsey.
Brennan further requested that in the event his request for inspection was denied, he be provided
with a written statement of all grounds for the denial. A true and correct copy of the March 13,
2013 e-mail is attached as Ex. 2.
11. On March 18, 2013, Karen Lorenz (?Lorenz?), Chief Deputy District Attorney for
the Twentieth Judicial District, wrote to Brennan denying his request to inspect the Indictment.
The grounds cited were that public disclosure of records such as that described in Brennan's
request would be contrary to Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 6.2, providing that grand jury
proceedings are secret, and that accordingly the disclosure of the documents would be contrary
to law and therefore the public interest. A true and correct copy of the March 18, 2013 letter is
attached as Ex. 3.
12. On June 27, 2013, Thomas B. Kelley (?Kelley?), as attorney for Brennan, and
also as attorney for RCFP, wrote Garnett requesting that he reconsider the position taken by
Lorenz in her March 18, 2013 letter. Kelley?s letter contended on behalf of his clients that:
(1) the Indictment that was voted upon, prepared for, and signed by the foreperson of the Grand
Jury was a record of official action that must be disclosed under the CCJRA; or, alternatively,
(2) the Indictment at least warranted the status of a grand jury report, which should be submitted
to this Court for consideration of disclosure to the public. The letter further argued that to the
extent the District Attorney is authorized to prevent an indictment from going forward by
refusing to sign it, his actions in taking such action should be fully disclosed to the public. By
this letter RCFP joined in Mr. Brennan's original request to inspect the Indictment, as explicated
in the Kelley letter. A true and correct copy of the June 27, 2013 letter is attached as Ex. 4.
13. On July 1, 2013, Sean P. Finn, Chief Trial Deputy/Custodian of Records for the
Office of the District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District (Finn), responded to Kelley's
letter, acknowledging the different views on the subject of whether an indictment voted upon,
prepared by or for the Grand Jury, and signed by its foreperson is an indictment that should
publicly be disclosed. Finn expressed respect for the views of Hon. Judge Sherman G. Finesilver
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado with respect to an indictment that was
prepared by a grand jury and signed by its foreman but unsigned by the prosecutor; Judge
Finesilver had held that such a document would not be treated as a public document but instead
be treated as a grand jury report subject to disclosure at the discretion of the court. However, in
this letter the District Attorney through Finn expressly disclaimed any determination that
disclosure of the Indictment was contrary to the public interest, using this language:
While we have ultimately decided that we must refuse your request, we have
found many of your arguments persuasive, and we have taken seriously your
request that we reconsider the question of what is required by the public interest
in these unusual circumstances. This office has spoken with Chief Beckner of the
Boulder Police Department in order to determine whether, in the view of his
Department, the release of documents like the ones you describe could hamper
ongoing or future investigations. He believes there is no such risk. As such, our
refusal to provide these documents is based solely upon our concerns regarding
the legality of such a disclosure. This decision should not be interpreted as an
exercise of our discretion pursuant to § 24-72-305[,] C.R.S. Thus the letter took
the position that the question of whether the Indictment should be made
available for inspection and copying should be decided by the Court and not the Office of the
District Attorney. A true and correct copy of the July 1, 2013 letter is attached as Ex. 5
14. The Plaintiffs believe, for reasons recited in the Kelley letter of June 27, 2013,
that the Indictment is a criminal justice record that reflects official action by the Grand Jury, and
accordingly that it is subject to mandatory disclosure upon request pursuant to §§ 24-72-303 &
304, C.R.S. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs submit that the Indictment should be treated as a report
by the Grand Jury, which is subject to disclosure and should be disclosed at the direction of this
Court pursuant to § 16-5-205.5(5)(d), C.R.S. Alternatively, they argue that the Indictment
should be disclosed to the public because such disclosure would serve the public interest in
government transparency and not be contrary to the public interest nor cause undue adverse
effect upon the privacy of any individual. For all of these reasons, this Court should order the
Indictment to be disclosed to Plaintiffs, an order that would ensure its disclosure to the public.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Charlie Brennan and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press, pursuant to § 24-72-305(7), C.R.S., respectfully pray that:
(a)
The Court enter an order directing the Defendant to show cause why the
Defendant should not permit their inspection and copying of the Indictment;
(b)
The Court conduct a hearing pursuant to such order at the earliest practical time
as required by § 24-72-305(7), C.R.S., and after such hearing to make the Show
Cause Order absolute;
(c)
The Court convene a status conference to establish a schedule for briefing and
evidence disclosure prior to the hearing so that the Court may be fully informed
before the hearing begins.

Dated: September 18, 2013.
By s/ Thomas B. Kelley
Thomas B. Kelley
Steven D. Zansberg
Christopher P. Beall
and
Marianne Wesson

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Charlie Brennan and Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press

THIS PLEADING WAS FILED WITH THE COURT THROUGH ICCES,
UNDER C.R.C.P. 121(C),§ 1-26.

 

[madeleine]

first of all, :tyou: cynic&otg for all the info!

second,I think Garnett is fighting the release because he would be somehow morally forced to actually do something about it if the can of worms will be opened....and it must be so comfy not to have to deal with this case...

 

[ozazure]

exciting times!!! I am so glad someone in the GJ spoke up!

 

[Frigga]

Can't help but wonder how this pic makes JR feel. After all these years, here he is, still waiting for answers.

I can't help but thank God that there were actually people in this beautiful little girls life who care about what happened to her... really care about the truth- god bless Fleet White. I really hope this lawsuit has legs and can get us the answers we seek. You all are amazing here, I can't get over the determination and absolute brilliance of all you sleuthers. I hope justice, in some form or fashion, is coming for JonBenet. RIP baby girl- people do care what happened to you.

 

[otg]

It's late, I'm tired .,, what does that all mean? In plain English and in a nutshell ...( Read it once...it didn't sink in)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Bottom line from all that legalese, mumbo-jumbo, and cross-referencing to other laws and decisions is really this:

I was skeptical at first that there might even be a chance of Garnett being forced to release the GJ’s true bill (the indictment form signed by the foreman) which Hunter refused to sign. Or if it was released, I thought it would be so heavily redacted as to make it almost useless. But reading the filing by Charlie Brennan and the lawyers representing him, apparently they are pointing out that the GJ’s indictment is a “record of official action”, and as such, and as mandated by the Colorado Supreme Court, it is required by law that it be released unless (and here’s the technicality) “non-disclosure is required by other law,” or the CCJRA (Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act).

That's the simple answer, Linda. So what could be a reason for this mandated release to be denied? There are two reasons that I can see (and this is where it will again get a little complicated).

We all know that Colorado law does not recognize that a person under the age of ten is capable of intent to commit a felony. However, we’ve also heard that no action can be taken that might even suggest the involvement of a minor. I’ve never been able to find a law that actually states that, so it could be that this is one of those factoids that have just become accepted as fact. I really don’t know. I can’t imagine that if an adult and a minor commit a criminal act together (not talking about the Ramseys in this case), the adult couldn’t be charged because the evidence would implicate the minor. But it is a possibility (IMO) that if the circumstances described in any counts against the R’s (what the court referred to as the “factual allegations of the indictment”) mentions the involvement of someone who is underage (someone other than JR or Patsy), it could be that this would be a circumstance where “non-disclosure is required by other law.” But if the “factual allegations of the indictment” do not contain any such reference, I can’t find or think of any other reason for it not to be released because of this exception.

The other of the two reasons for information to be denied (because of the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act) would be because of a weighing of public interest versus a right to privacy, and are subject to the custodian’s discretion (the DA’s office). Here is what was written in another CSC decision (Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 196 P.3d 892, 903 (Colo. 2008)):
(bbm)

The General Assembly has described this public and private interests balancing function as a weighing process involving the "public interest" versus the "harm to . . . privacy . . . or dangers of unwarranted adverse consequences." § 24-72-308 (1) (c), C.R.S. (2008). The CCJRA record must be open for inspection unless the privacy interest or dangers of adverse consequences "outweigh" the public interest. See id. In Harris, we determined that the General Assembly intended for this standard of balancing to apply not only to courts when addressing "official actions," but also to all custodians who have discretionary authority regarding the inspection of criminal justice records under sections 24-72-304 and -305, C.R.S. (2008), including sheriffs. 123 P.3d at 1174-75. Indeed, section 24-72-305(5) favors making the record available for inspection unless the custodian, in exercising his or her sound discretion, finds "disclosure would be contrary to the public interest."

B. Duty to Balance Public and Private Interests When Inspection Is Consigned to the Custodian’s Discretion
​

In creating a class of criminal justice records, the inspection of which is subject to the custodian’s exercise of sound discretion, the General Assembly intended the custodian to engage in balancing the public and private interests in the inspection request. See § 24-72-301(2), C.R.S. (2008) (providing for the discretionary release of criminal justice records other than records of "official action"); Harris, 123 P.3d at 1175 (construing the legislature’s intent to extend the balancing test of section 24-72-308(1)(c), C.R.S. (2008), for "official action" to all criminal justice records requests).

The custodian must consider the pertinent factors, which include: the privacy interests of individuals who may be impacted by a decision to allow inspection; the agency's interest in keeping confidential information confidential; the agency's interest in pursuing ongoing investigations without compromising them; the public purpose to be served in allowing inspection; and any other pertinent consideration relevant to the circumstances of the particular request. Harris, 123 P.3d at 1174.

So to me it seems that the court will have to make a determination based on the DA’s response -- what the court refers to as “an order to show cause”. If the court does deny Brennan’s request, it should state in its decision which one of the two reasons it uses in its determination. And even then, the decision could be appealed to the CSC who seems to have (to me anyway) a slightly more favorable leaning toward the public’s right to information.

Links:

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Public_Access.cfm
http://www.rcfp.org/colorado-open-g...rd-categories-open-or-closed/n-police-records
http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=6884
http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-72-303.html
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/ (You have to click on “Colorado Revised Statutes” and then follow the referenced statute number.)


Disclaimer:
After writing this, I should point out that I am not a lawyer, and I am not trying to sound like I know more than I do. But I actually enjoy reading these court cases, and I don’t mind having to look up the big words and the legalese, and looking up the cross-referenced decisions and precedents to try and figure out what’s being said.

 

[otg]

After my last post, I had to go get some new tires for my truck (That’s right -- I live in Texas.). While sitting there waiting on it, I thought about what I had written and decided I should add something to what I had stated as a possible reason for a conflict with another law which might be reason to not allow release of the true bill information. While I believe that circumstance to be a strong possibility, I know others do not; and I didn’t mean to suggest that juvenile involvement might be the only reason for a conflict with another law. I gave that example as a possible reason, but I didn’t mean to suggest that that is the only possibility. There may very well be other reasons that haven’t occurred to me. I was simply trying to illustrate how that part of the court’s reasoning might play into its decision.

 

[dodie20]

Another reason they may claim they want the indictment to remain sealed, is that 'the case is still active', cough cough. After claiming breach of promise, though, they'd better not even think of going there. How lame would that be?

 

[Charterhouse]

I can't help but thank God that there were actually people in this beautiful little girls life who care about what happened to her... really care about the truth- god bless Fleet White. I really hope this lawsuit has legs and can get us the answers we seek. You all are amazing here, I can't get over the determination and absolute brilliance of all you sleuthers. I hope justice, in some form or fashion, is coming for JonBenet. RIP baby girl- people do care what happened to you.[/QUOTE

I agree with you. Thank God Fleet White is still there fighting for Jon Benet. He has paid some heavy prices for all of his efforts in the past. I am glad that he still wants justice for Jon Benet.

Mr. White if you read here I would like to thank you for all you have done and continue to do. Also, thanks everyone here for seeking justice and still caring about what happened to JB.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Well, I found a Grand Jury indictment from the Gosnell case in Philadelphia, and there are almost 100 pages about the corruption in the case. There's a section called "How did this go on for so long?" with multiple, major entities getting an entire chapter. It's extremely detailed with a lot of the testimony that was said during the GJ:

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf
(Warning: Some graphic photos)

So I don't know if the Ramsey GJ will be similar...but the fact that the Boulder DA really doesn't want it released...makes me think there's more to it than simply a list of charges.

You know, I am pro-choice, but that doctor is evil personified. Makes me sick.

 

[Linda7NJ]

You know, I am pro-choice, but that doctor is evil personified. Makes me sick.

Ditto!!!!

Did you see those evidence photos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[FrayedKnot]

Ditto!!!!

Did you see those evidence photos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Horrific. Honestly, how can this "doctor" or ANYONE be okay with these "procedures"? I find it hard to give any leeway to the staff members who followed "procedures. Snipping the spinal column of a living baby is obscene.

 

[Rashi'sDaughter]

:drumroll:Finally the break we have all been waiting for! I hope....
I just wanted to add one more thing. I would bet that John and Burke are sweating bullets over this; and I for one hope that their peaceful nights of slumber are at an end.

 

[Tadpole12]

Judge rules to release secret indictment in JonBenet Ramsey killing:
October 17, 2013


http://kdvr.com/2013/10/17/judge-rules-to-release-secret-indictment-in-jonbenet-ramsey-killing/

BOULDER, Colo. — A judge ruled in favor Thursday of releasing a secret indictment of the parents in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
The decision in favor of the plaintiffs means there will be a second hearing where the Boulder District Attorney’s Office must show a compelling reason that the documents should not be released to the public.