Colorado Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, Jun 14, 2006.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Since I believe that Mary Lacy, as district attorney of Boulder, was ethically wrong when she stated publicly that she supported Carnes' decision that an intruder was responsible for JBR's death, I went looking for Colorado's Bar Association rules of professional conduct (not that I think Lacy is a professional in any sense of the word). Keep in mind that Lacy is first and foremost a lawyer and bound by the bar's rules.

    Here is what I found:


    http://www.cobar.org/group/index.cfm?category=384&EntityID=CETH



    Ethics Committee Home >> Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct >> Advocate



    Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

    ...

    The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the Rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.

    (Lacy knew, or should have known, her statements would have a substantial prejudicial effect on potential jurors, should the Ramsey case ever be tried in court.)

    ...

    There are, on the other hand, certain subjects which are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:

    (1) the character, credibility, ..., witness or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

    (Alex Hunter should have been prosecuted for the statements he made publicly about Steve Thomas, a potential witness in a trial regarding JBR.)


    ...

    Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved. Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Civil trials may be less sensitive. Nonjury hearings and arbitration proceedings may be even less affected.


    http://www.cobar.org/group/display.cfm?GenID=2084

    Rule 8.4 Misconduct


    It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

    (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation

    (I believe Lacy engaged in conduct involvinig dishonest, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation when she collaborated with Lin Wood to remove the investigation from the BPD and place it under her office where she could control the investigation.)

    (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

    (Lacy had no business exonerating the Ramseys from suspicion by supporting the decision of a civil court judge, which was based on very biased information. By doing so, she engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.)

    Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal


    http://www.cobar.org/group/display.cfm?GenID=2084

    Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney.

    (I believe Lacy has abused her public office by makinig prejudicial comments involving an open murder case.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2006
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm

    What About Judge Carnes's Ruling?

    by Ryan Ross



    The recent ruling by a federal judge dismissing a suit against the Ramseys is a good illustration of the hazards of relying on lawsuits as vehicles for truth seeking.

    Judge Julie Carnes last month tossed out the defamation suit filed against the Ramseys by journalist Chris Wolf, whom the Ramseys had identified in their book as one of the suspects in the death of their daughter. In her ruling, Judge Carnes writes that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did."

    But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have. The Ramseys told the judge about what police have -- and claim to have -- only when it served their interests. And Wolf's attorney, who didn't have access to police files either, didn't dispute the "overwhelming majority" of the statements of facts asserted by the Ramseys, according to Judge Carnes.

    The result is that Carnes's ruling reads very much like something the Ramseys would write. For openers, for example, she writes that JonBenet was murdered. The only evidence before her of that was the assertion of the Ramseys that their daughter was murdered. Wolf's lawyer didn't dispute that because Wolf also thinks JonBenet was murdered. So Judge Carnes accepted that conclusion. She had no choice. No one suggested otherwise to her.

    Judge Carnes might have felt differently had she known that many of the mysteries of the crime scene that the Ramseys have pointed to as evidence of an intruder have long since been explained as having come from family members. The Ramseys didn't tell her about those discoveries, even when they knew about them.

    Patsy Ramsey, for example, was told by prosecutors in 2000 that the Ramsey's son, Burke, and a friend of his had both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned a Hi-Tec boot. Nonetheless, Judge Carnes writes in her ruling, based on assertions made to her last summer by the Ramseys, that that the owner of the Hi-Tec boot has never been identified. Wolf didn't dispute that, but then he didn't attend the interview during which prosecutors told Patsy about Burke and his friend's grand jury testimony.

    The Ramseys also learned in 2000 that prosecutors say they have the results of fiber tests indicating that fibers similar to the ones in the red sweater-jacket she had been wearing the day before her daughter was killed are consistent with fibers from in the paint tray from which the brush used to fashion the ligature found around her daughter's neck was found, in the brush that was a part of the ligature, and "tied into" the ligature.

    The Ramseys didn't mention a word of this to Judge Carnes, making the judge look like she's flailing around in the dark, being spoon fed only the information that would lead her to the conclusions the Ramseys want her to reach, while the people feeding her keep secret what they've been told that don't want her to know.

    Judge Carnes's ruling includes a list of items the Ramseys consider evidence of an intruder, only a small fraction of which has even been cited by Det. Lou Smit, the staunchest advocate of the intruder theory who, unlike the Ramseys, had at one time seen all the police evidence in the case. If Smit won't bother to cite the items on this list as evidence of an intruder, there's little reason for anyone else to.

    Judge Carnes has no more luck formulating a coherent explanation for why an intruder would leave behind a ransom note in his or her own handwriting that anyone else has. She simply notes the suggestion of the Ramseys that the intruder may have been laying in wait for the Ramseys before they came home Christmas Day, in which case the intruder would have had plenty of time to write a long note.

    But the biggest problem the note poses for intruder theorists is not its length, but the fact that it was left behind when there had been no kidnapping. Judge Carnes doesn't offer any explanation for why she thinks an intruder who had just killed JonBenet and left the body in the family residence would leave behind a ransom note he/she had written that would provide the best evidence linking him or her to the murder, when he/she would know that as soon as someone conducted a thorough search of the house the possibility of obtaining a ransom would be lost and a manhunt for the murderer would be launched.

    Finally, Judge Carnes does a tap dance on the question of the credibility of Gideon Epstein, the handwriting expert Wolf was relying on for his assertion that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Judge Carnes acknowledged that in reaching her decision on whether to dismiss Wolf's suit before it goes to a jury that she is not supposed to assess the credibility of any of his witnesses, because that is something only a jury is permitted to do. Judge Carnes also acknowledges that Epstein is qualified to render such an opinion.

    But she complained that in his deposition in the case Epstein hadn't explained the methodology he had used to conclude with "absolute certainty" that Patsy had written the note. Yes, he had said there were similarities between the note and Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting. But he hadn't specified how many similarities or what kind. His failure to do so, Judge Carnes concluded, meant that "the weight and impact" of his testimony would "necessarily" have been less than the weight of the handwriting experts relied on by Boulder police.

    Epstein could, of course, have explained his methodology in more detail in his deposition, had Wolf's attorney asked him to, and to a jury, had Carnes permitted the case to go forward. But barring a successful appeal, the judge has made sure he won't get the opportunity.

    Now, how is it that Judge Carnes knows about the handwriting experts Boulder police relied on? The Ramseys told her about them and their findings. And how did they know? Because Boulder prosecutors, bending over backwards to accommodate the Ramseys, had told them.

    There's no reason to expect the Ramseys to give Judge Carnes evidence they know of that undercuts their assertions.

    And there's no reason to consider Judge Carnes's ruling much more than a summary of the catalog of oft repeated Ramsey claims about the case.
     
  3. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    It is very sad when we, mere internet posters and gutter dwellers can (and have known for some time) that what Lacy and Carnes did was inappropriate and unprofessional.

    It is very sad that we also can bring up the "law" and how it relates to their inappropriateness, unprofessionalism and UNtruths and misinformation from persons who are paid to represent LAW.

    My question:

    WHY hasn't someone who is in a position to address this, done so?

    Is it for the same reason that doctors do not like to go against one another?
    Is it because they don't want to deal with Lin Wood?
    Could Lin Wood actually have something to say legally if this was addressed?

    Is it just plain UNcaring and covering up for their own ineptitude?
    Is it to cover up the unbelieveably lousy job they did all along?

    Someone tell me why the Ramseys and their cronies, including judges and the DA are above the law????

    Please :burnedup: :wtf: :banghead: :steamed: :rs:
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yes to all of your questions, Barbara.

    Thanks, WY, for posting these for us. You may not know this, but years ago, I actually wrote a letter to the Colorado Bar, the AG of Colorado--the one whose husband called John Ramsey a couple of times within days of the murder to offer condolences, and even to the US AG about this very topic.

    As far as I could discern, from all the responses I got...and did not get...nobody cares. They don't even care enough to pretend they care. As Barbara said, they police themselves and each other, and looking the other way is SOP. It's all about politics and power.

    JonBenet never stood a chance. Not in this world. She was just a sexualized child who caught the eye of the wrong person, and through a series of events, she was murdered for it, IMO. In the entire of Colorado, there is not one person who has the power to make a difference in this case AND has the inclination to risk anything more to get justice for this murdered child. Her parents saw to that long ago.
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    That's true, KK, but it's also the fault of the people in the State of Colorado (and other states, as well) who are so apathetic they let public officials abuse the law like this. It's not just our elected officials that don't care, people in general don't care. It doesn't affect them, personally, so they don't get involved.

    Someday, it may affect them, personally. Maybe then they will understand what corruption in government really means.
     
  6. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks KK for the info. What a sad state of affairs in Boulder. As WY said, if it doesn't personally affect them in Colorado, they just don't seem to care that their elected, and let's not forget taxpayer PAID officials are not doing their job.

    Even those who don't give a damn about the JBR case, should at least care what their officials are doing, and NOT doing.

    But WY is right. It must just be human nature; if it doesn't affect someone personally, they just don't speak out. I wonder, with all due respect if FW ever wrote about the system being corrupt and not up to par before this case

    Like the others in Boulder, probably not.

    Thanks again to WY for reminding us of the corruption in Boulder. I believe it is as much corruption as incompetence and apathy, starting with Hunter and Haddon and just passing the torch along to all who come after.
     
  7. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Every time I think about what happened to the Ramsey case because of the corrupt fools in Boulder, I just burn. Who told those public and elected officials they are above the law? Who do they think pays their wages and supplies them with all those nice perks?

    It's not just Boulder - government is out of control, period. I don't think I've ever seen it this bad, but maybe I never paid as much attention as I do these days. They get into office, and they live and work among the self-annointed privileged who live in a bubble, isolated somewhere above the common people they are supposed to represent.

    Oh man, better not get going on this one. The first person who walks into my office this morning might get his head taken off.
     
  8. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    My gut instinct has told me for years now that the DA's office, the Ramseys and Woody have known (?) believed (?) trusted (?) that this case will never see the inside of a courtroom - at least not for many moons to come.

    It's going to take some new forensic science or the next Dr. Henry Lee to get it there neither of which has been conceived as yet. JMHO.
     
  9. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    The question is, can she be disbarred for it?

    Speaking of which, Woody's already done enough to be disbarred many times over. Barratry, interfering with investigation, violation of civil liberties...it's a long list.
     
  10. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    I suppose Judge Carnes could have had access to Boulder police files if she had wanted to. But she obviously took at face value what the suspects (!) told her. I don't buy that - a judge can't be that naive.
    Which is why I think the reason why Carnes came to the 'conclusion' that an intruder did it was simple cowardice - she, just like Hunter and many others involved in the investigation, was obviously afraid of the top-flight attorney team the Ramseys had assembled.
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member


    No, rashomom, civil law dictates that the judge can only consider the evidence submitted before her, and she decides what is accepted as evidence, as well. Since Darnay stipulated to everything Smit told Judge Carnes, meaning he didn't dispute any of it, so it was considered FACT, Smit could have told Carnes aliens did it, and she'd have to accept that if Darnay said, no contest.

    I'm serious. It's how Darnay got the case to move beyond Wood's initial motion to dismiss. Darnay submitted that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, therefore, she slandered Wolf when she maliciously listed HIM as a suspect in her book. The judge accepted that as the basis for having the case tried. Darnay only had to prove Patsy wrote the note BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, which is basically, it's 51% or more likely that she did. It's only when Wood had Smit come in to sway Carnes, and Darnay's handwriting experts ALL FELL THROUGH, that the case was then summarily dismissed before it ever got to a jury. That happened because Carnes judged Darnay didn't have the evidence to continue to trial. I'm not sure why Carnes didn't accept any of Darnay's experts. Some were not recognized as experts by Carnes, and the most important and recognized one QUIT at the last minute--and nobody will say why THAT happened, but it could have been because he was never paid...or something else, we'll never know.

    No, Carnes could NOT have had access to the case files, not those still sealed by the DA in Boulder. Of course, she got a Smit tour of the case, compliments of Hunter and the stolen PowerPoint. But in a civil case, the only evidence the judge and/or jury sees is that submitted by the lawyers/parties. The judge nor jury goes hunting. It's not like a criminal trial at all. It's all about the money. Nobody is going to jail. Keenan wouldn't have given Carnes anything from this case if she had to fight to the death to keep it sealed, IMO. But I bet she loves her to death now, because Carnes handed Keenan the perfect opportunity to give herself a big plug for NEVER ARRESTING THE RAMSEYS.

    Ah, well, water under the bridge and all that....
     
  12. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Nuts to that! Darnay never bothered to do any work with the experts. He left them high and dry.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice