In 2008, David Bueno was tried for the 2004 murder of another prisoner in the Limon Correctional Facility and convicted of murder.  Although Bueno was already serving a life sentence, Carol Chambers sought the death penalty.  The case involved the stabbing death of Jeffrey Heird, a white supremacist who had been labeled as a rat for refusing to warn fellow white inmates about a drug bust in prison.   The defenses theory was that the victim was a renegade white supremacist who was killed by other white gang members who then blamed the mruder on three Hispanic inmates, including Bueno.

It  has now come to light that the 18th Judicial District prosecutors withheld  documents consistent with the defense theory.  This new information has only come to light because the judge presiding over Bueno’s co-defendant’s case, has called the D.A. to task.  For example, prosecutors failed to disclose in the Bueno case that:

 [M]inutes after finding Heird’s body, a prison nurse found a letter written by the Aryan Nation threatening to “exterminate” white inmates who “refuse to accept their proud race”  . . . [and]  two days after Heird’s death, another white inmate was found in the same living unit with blunt chest trauma. David Hollenbeck died three days later. He was named in the Aryan Nation letter as a specific target.

This is just the tip of the iceberg as defense attorneys begin to pour over the newly disclosed evidence.  As noted by the Denver Post:

Chambers’ office had turned over 31,006 pages of evidence when Bueno’s capital murder trial began in 2008. As of this week, 65,429 pages have been disclosed. That means more evidence has come forward in the 17 months since Bueno’s conviction than before he was tried — and only, in large part, because the judge presiding over [the co-defendant's] case ordered it.

The reality is far different, however.  If the police have asked to interview you and get “your side of the story”, understand that prior to talking with you, the police have already decided whether they are going to arrest you.  Its a done deal, one way or the other.  And it doesn’t matter if are completely innocent of the charges.  The history of criminal law is littered with cases where innocent people have made statements to the police and have still been arrested and charged with crimes.    Unless you believe yourself to be the second coming of Johnny Cochran, do you not fool yourself into thinking that somehow you will be the exception to the rule and that you, of all the millions of defendants before you, will someone ”talk your way out of” an arrest.   

Take, for example, the case of a 9-11 call for domestic violence.  Your spouse has called the police claiming that you assaulted him or her after you got home drunk.  You happen to be completely innocent of the charges–you never assaulted your spouse  although you have had a beer or two that evening.  Enboldened by the belief that the “truth will set you free”, you willingly speak with the police and give them your side of the story.  Unfortunately, the police have already decided whether to arrest you based on what the “victim” has already stated and especially if there is some “evidence” corroborating their statement (for example bruise marks, even if those bruise marks have a different origin other than a criminal assault).

Anything you say to the police will be used against you and even the most innocuous and seemingly positive statements in your defense can be twisted and spun in such a way that it can corroborate elements of the “victim’s” story.  Returning to the hypothetical, thinking that you might be helping your case by talking, you might also be admitting that you had been drinking; that you got mad at your spouse; this wasn’t the first time you have argued; that your spouse does have visible injuries and that those injuries weren’t there before this evening.   Each of these seemingly innocent facts will be heard by the police as corroborating the “victim’s” story.

Also remember that your silence cannot be used against you in a court of law.  The jury and judge can’t hold it against you that you remained silent.  Sure, if you tell the police officer that you don’t want to answer their questions, they may give you a funny look and say something like:  “what have you got to hide?” or “we just want to make sure we have all the facts.”  Just remember, the police have already made up their minds about you and there is nothing you can say that will keep you from being arrested.  

Before talking to the police, you can call  The Law Office of Andres R. Guevara for a free consultation at (720) 379-8262.

Defense attorneys welcomed the news.

“Hallelujah,” Fort Wayne attorney Nikos Nakos said. “I think that’s wonderful. That will certainly cut down on the trials, I believe, and it will make everyone’s job less difficult.”

Defense Attorney Don Swanson was amazed by the court’s new rule but said it’s a positive move forward. He said that sometimes police take “literary license with what they hear.” “I think prosecutors will think it’s good, too,” Swanson said. “They want the best case they can get.”

Colorado has no requirement that police audiotape or videotape interrogations.  Instead, police often times interpret what the defendant stated or rely on notes that may have been poorly taken.  The problem can be even more acute with Spanish speaking or non-English speaking defendants, especially since some officers may claim to be fluent but in actuality do not translate each word used by the defendant. 

If you are arrested for a crime, you do not need to speak to the police.  Understand that the police have already decided BEFORE your statement whether or not you will be arrested for a crime.  In my nearly fifteen years as an attorney, I don’t recall a single instance where a defendant “talked their way out” of an arrest by giving a statement.  If you are arrested, you can call The Law Office of Andres R. Guevara for a free consultation at (720) 379-8262.

During the trial, much of the prosecution’s case has been built on speculation as to what method Mr. Thompson may have used to dispose of Aarone’s body coupled with an apparant history of physical abuse by Mr. Thompson towards his other children. To that end, the state’s case has included testimony by other witnesses (including the other Thompson kids) about acts of physical abuse towards the children.

The trial of Aaron Thompson has been ongoing in Arapahoe County District Court for nearly two months with five weeks of testimony by prosecution witness. On September 9, 2009, the defense rested its case.

Today, one day after the defense had rested and with the case ready to be sent to the jury, prosecutors dropped a bombshell in the form of 100 pages of evidence which had never before turned over to the defense. The documents contained absolutely new information that police investigators had on August 10 (while the trial was still ongoing!) discovered a vehicle, presumably owned by Mr. Thompson, at his residence. The prosecution has not stated how it the police, over the past several years in which they have been handling the case, did not locate a motor vehicle at Mr. Thompson’s residence. How do you miss something that big?

Now, the case is in turmoil as the defense team will likely push for a mistrial and either or both sides of the case will push for testing and an examination of the contents of the motor vehicle for any physical evidence. Conceivably, evidence in the vehicle could exonerate Mr. Thompson.

Unfortunately, people sometimes assume that the police and prosecutors will always act dilligently to turn over documents and evidence in the case to satisfy their requirements under the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. The reality can be far from the ideal and raises a bigger issue:

If such an abuse of process could happen in a high profile case, such as the Aarone Thompson matter, involving hundreds of witnesses, massive resources spent by the county and state, years of work by investigators and experts, and a large staff of prosecuters compiling, organizing and presenting this evidence . . . .what could happen your case?

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 11, 2009

Prosecutors in court admitted that they knew about the vehicle, went ahead and tested it, found nothing and didn’t bother informing the Defense or providing them information until nearly the end of trial. The Defense has not asked for a mistrial at this time but reserves the right to request it at a later date. In the meantime, the court has permitted the Defense to re-open its case.