One Response

  1. At the Sunshine Meeting this morning I asked Bruce Stahlman to provide us a little more info, if possible, on the 71 cases mentioned in their statement. He was kind enough to respond in writing and has given me permission to post on the Blog.

    From Bruce:


    My sincere apologies but I screwed up when Carol asked me how far back the 71 improper warrants went. I recalled a time frame in the memo that addressed the topic of late Dec. 2009 through early April 2010. Upon fact checking my information, turns out that this time frame was actually a data base date search range for “library citations that were dismissed with a canceled warrant between 29 Jan. 2010 and 5 April 2010” (all 71 were formally canceled between 5 March and 10 March after the Henson case had come to light). The original warrants themselves date back to mid-2006 so I wanted to correct this mistake accordingly. While 71 is still the right number and doesn’t alter the underlying issue, the time range during which the warrants were issued was far longer than I’d suggested and I apologize for my misunderstanding of the details.

    Secondly, Tom asked about the prosecutor’s oversight of the warrant process. Verified w/ Suzanne to make sure I was up to speed as this was previously discussed by Council in the context of the broader scope of Judge Kimmel and the Henson case. She indicated that someone with authority and knowledge (e.g., LPD, Library, etc.) would have to issue a summons on the basis of probable cause concerning an infraction (e.g., a library book or DVD not being returned). Presumably this occurs after a variety of attempts have been made to retrieve the property. The summons would be turned over to the Court whereupon a show cause order would be issued by the Judge and under ideal laboratory conditions, the postal return receipt would be included in the file as evidence of proper due process service. An arrest warrant would subsequently be issued in the event the show cause order was not honored as was the situation in the Henson and 71 other cases. Apparently during prosecutor Alan Katz’s tenure, there was no prosecutor review of these files under the assumption that probable cause existed. We’ve no substantive evidence that the prosecutor was aware of due process flaws that have recently come to light but I can confirm the process has been changed now by Judge Kriss to require the prosecutor sign-off on the file before a warrant is issued. I’d likely expect this will continue as standard operating procedure point forward. Hope that explains the situation but please let me know if you’ve additional questions.

    By the way, would appreciate it if you’d forward this to anyone at the meeting this a.m. that I’ve not directly copied as I don’t have a complete e-mail address list. Thanks, much.

    Best regards.

    Bruce R. Stahlman
    6192 S. Aberdeen St.
    Littleton, Colorado 80120

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: