Re: St. James' letter agreeing to men's release
- From: "Sanity" <sanity-clause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Sep 2006 07:32:59 -0700
St. James' letter agreeing to men's release
Steamboat Springs - September 6, 2006
Steamboat Springs, CO 80477
RE: People v. David Siller, case no. 06CR110
People v. Giles Charlé, case no. 06CR111
I write this letter to you after much deliberation. As you are aware, you
and I negotiated a disposition in the above styled cases at arm's length.
Your clients knew the facts available to the State and evaluated the risks
of the State being able to prove these facts. They decided to avoid a
potential felony burglary conviction at trial by choosing between two
negotiated options: one a deferred felony, guaranteeing them a dismissal of
the felony charge in two years if they kept out of trouble; and the other a
misdemeanor conviction with six months in jail (108 days with good time
credit). After consulting a number of lawyers and reviewing the facts of the
case they chose to settle their cases rather than to plead not guilty and
require the State to present its facts to twelve citizens of the community.
Your clients stood before Judge Garrecht and were asked if they knowingly
and intelligently were pleading guilty to trespass. They told the judge that
they were. Judge Garrecht asked them if they were being coerced or forced to
enter pleas of guilty and they told him that they were not. Judge Garrecht
had the authority to reject the negotiated settlement if he believed that
the disposition was unfair. He did not.
Subsequent to the entry of their pleas and sentencing, the victim in this
case has come forward and indicated that, although your clients entered the
store, the produce that they took was of no value. This new information is
directly contrary to one of the shop owners verbal and written statements
that her examination of the produce revealed it was fresh and that she
valued what they took at $15 retail. One of the owners has now publicly
stated that the notoriety that this case has received has hurt his business
and caused him to lose money. He wants it to be publicly known now that,
contrary to their initial request for vigorous prosecution, they do not now
want to have anything to do with this case.
Tsk tsk, making a written complaint falsely is a crime, and people's
lives and Liberty have been trifled with. I'd sentence the shop owner
to a night in lock-up for making a fase complaint, and the district
attorney to a night in lock-up for deriliction of duty in failing to
prosecute him for filing a false complaint. Equal justice for ALL!
As you know, this case has received great media coverage. The bulk of it was
one sided and portrayed this as an instance in which two hungry men removed
spoiled food from a dumpster. This is contrary to what one of the victims
told the police and wrote in her own words. It is contrary to what an
independent eyewitness saw and it is contrary to what the circumstantial
physical evidence shows. Nevertheless, it is what a portion of the public
believes and that belief is being fueled by the victims desire now to
distance themselves from the case and to ensure that their business does not
suffer. I cannot review the facts available to the State with every member
of the public. I cannot review the facts available to the State with every
member of the public. You and other lawyers did so with your clients and
they made a decision based upon those available facts.
Either the complaint was true or it was false. Lawyering does not
It does now, however, appear that based upon incomplete and incorrect
information a portion of the community has committed to a view of this case
and its outcome. My office will not be able to change this misperception.
Making a false complaint is a crime and you know it Mr. DA.
It is clear this portion of the community reacting to that misinformation
wishes a different outcome. Parenthetically, I would note that now that all
of the information contained in the police investigation has become
available, many people who disagreed with the disposition now believe it was
appropriate. While my office continues to persist in its contention that
This is pure sophistry. Offices neither persist nor contend, people
do. A DA is spoz'ta prosecute complaints brought to him, or prosecute
people that bring false complaints.
this was a burglary case and that your clients unlawfully entered the
interior of the store we are willing to compromise our position and hope
that the message still remains that it is unacceptable to burglarize a local
But it's okay for Dubya to burglarize Iraq because it ain't local?
Huh? I don't get it; does "the interior of the store" mean 'inside the
dumpster'? Is it possible to "burglarize" a business that is open for
business or was it alleged that they broke in? In Missouri "tresspass"
means there is a fence AND signs that say "NO TRESSPASSING" but even
then tresspassing and burglary are distinct offenses. WTF?
As such, we will agree to a stipulated reduction of sentence in
these two cases to the time that the defendants have served in the Routt
County Jail. I have prepared a stipulation reflecting this agreement. Please
let me know when you are available to sign it and present it to the Court.
I can't find that in any of my dictionaries, but it sounds
Kerry St. James
Assistant District Attorney
Kerry, it's not fun to watch you squirm and backpeddle, please stop.
Just do your job.
Sanity Clause RE
- Prev by Date: Talk With David Siller and Giles Charle
- Next by Date: Re: Talk With David Siller and Giles Charle
- Previous by thread: Re: St. James' letter agreeing to men's release
- Next by thread: Re: St. James' letter agreeing to men's release