Judges in Colo hear appeal over racist persecution | Courts

The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday It will be assessed whether a juvenile defendant who was tried as an adult and convicted of murder was entitled to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the government engaged in selective, race-based prosecution.

At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to hear a case on appeal.

The justices narrowly dismissed a second appeal that questioned the viability of a campaign finance complaint filed well outside the statute of limitations under state law.

Varied treatment

Lloyd Chavez IV, a student at Cherokee Trail High School, died in May 2019 after four teenagers tried to rob him during a meeting to buy vaping supplies. Demarea Mitchell was the one who fatally shot Chavez, but jurors also convicted Kenneth Alfonso Gallegos of murder for his participation in the robbery.

The remaining two defendants cooperated with law enforcement, and Arapahoe County prosecutors refiled those charges in juvenile court. The defendants, who were Hispanic or white, subsequently pleaded guilty and served only two years in juvenile detention.

Mitchell and Gallegos, who are black, have not received similar offers from the prosecutor. They are both serving life sentences.

Mitchell initially sought to dismiss the charges on the grounds that prosecutors violated his equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the inability to transfer his case to juvenile court was based on Mitchell’s race.

District Court Judge Ben L. Leutwyler disagreed, noting that Mitchell was not in an identical position as the two non-black defendants.

“There is evidence supporting the finding that Mr. Mitchell is the participant who actually shot and killed Mr. Chavez,” he wrote. “Consideration of that fact alone is sufficient to establish that the defendant is not in the same situation as the persons who drove to the scene but did not otherwise participate in the robbery and murder of Mr. Chavez. ”

A three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals agreed with Leutwyler’s reasoning that the prosecutor’s decision-making did not have a discriminatory effect. It did not address the second part of a selective prosecution claim: whether prosecutors had a discriminatory aim.

Mitchell appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting that all four suspects had initially been charged with murder at the start of the case.

“In other words, even though the prosecution’s sole theory was that each participant in the robbery had demonstrated the same intent to commit the robbery and resulting murder, only the two black co-defendants deserved the harsher sentences in adult district court,” wrote attorney Patrick R. Henson.

The Supreme Court will assess that argument. The justices will hear arguments later this month in a separate appeal involving Gallegos’ convictions.

The thing is Mitchell to People.

Limitation period

The court also fell one vote short of accepting a second case. Suzanne Taheri was the unsuccessful 2020 Republican candidate for the seat now held by Sen. Chris Kolker, D-Littleton. After Taheri ran for office in 2019, she filed her federal tax return. In May 2020 a complainant came who consulted with a representative of the progressive interest group ProgressNow Colorado has filed a campaign finance complaint against Taheri based on her disclosure.

The law requires campaign finance complaints to be filed within 180 days after someone “knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable care, of the alleged violation.” In Taheri’s case, the complaint came 263 days after her alleged lack of financial disclosure.

Although Taheri believed she had complied with Colorado’s campaign finance requirements, an administrative law judge concluded that this was not the appropriate form of disclosure. Moreover, he was of the opinion that the complaint had been filed within the legal framework. Taheri appealed, but had to pay an $850 fine.

A panel of three judges for the Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed the finding that the complainant exercised reasonable care in discovering and reporting the violation, despite the fact that it occurred outside the 180-day period.

The legislature “chose to establish a statute of limitations that would not run based on the date of the violation, but on the date a citizen reasonably discovered it. ​​That is the prerogative of the legislature,” Justice Elizabeth L. Harris wrote.

Taheri appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it is unclear which complaints would ever be time-barred under that standard, opening the door for “technical violations” of previous elections reported years later.

Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez and Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. indicated that they would have heard Taheri’s case.

The thing is Taheri v. Beall et al.