Nemesis102519
Member
Thank you so much for your reply.I practice in Colorado, though I don't get involved in any criminal cases other than criminal tax offenses. Nevertheless, from my years of practice here and conversations I've had with colleagues and judges, I've never seen or heard of that particular kind of outcome in any other serious felony case. So my thought is that such deals are indeed not very common. But bear in mind that the circumstances in which the prosecution would benefit from that kind of plea bargain in a murder case or other serious felony are also not very common.
I know nothing about the case other than what you posted here, and as the case is sealed, I won't be able to find out the details of the case as contained in court records. I have looked at a few of the news reports, but they don't give a whole lot of insight to the various legal proceedings and evidence available in the case. Mostly just reports of the final outcome. However, I'll give you my perspective of what I think is most likely, if that might help you.
Most prosecutors in this state, whether in a conservative area like Grand Junction or a liberal area like Boulder want to prosecute murderers and their associates to the fullest extent possible. If the prosecutor had great evidence against both the primary actor and the accessory/accomplice to the murder (other than than testimony of one of them against the other) she would not have have been given such a favorable deal.
It is not uncommon for the prosecution to have less than ideal evidence against a defendant. In this case, if the evidence the prosecution had wouldn't be strong enough to convict either of them without the testimony of the other then both actors in the murder might have walked away scott free. In that situation, the prosecutors need one of them to turn on the other and provide the testimony needed to get the conviction of the other.
The prosecutor would most want to lock up the primary actor in the murder, hopefully to never again see the light of day outside prison. So they'd lean on the other person whose role was secondary to the one who actually pulled the trigger to at least get the primary actor convicted and locked away. It may well be that the deal struck was the best one the prosecution could get to secure that necessary testimony. And it appears from the information provided in this threat that the prosecution did succeed in getting the primary actor convicted and locked away. Part of that was due to the testimony of another witness for the prosecution, a cell mate of the primary actor who testified that the primary actor confessed to the crime while in jail. That certainly helped the prosecution, but testimony by other criminals in jail, perhaps trying to get a better outcome in their own case, presents risks for the prosecutors too. The defense presumably tried as hard as it could to discredit that testimony, pointing out that as a criminal himself the testimony can't be considered very reliable. Bolstering his account of the confession with the account from the accessory/accomplice to the crime would go a long way to getting over that problem.
Is it a totally fair outcome? No. If she was indeed an accessory she ideally would have gone to prison for a long time too. But, as the old expression goes, sometimes it is better to get half a loaf of bread than no bread at all. The half loaf here being the conviction and life sentence of the primary actor at the expense of the other half, which would be locking up the accessory for a long time too. The primary actor in the murder had a long criminal record and the prosecution would really want that guy off the streets for good. If you can't get both, then at least some measure of justice is exacted by getting the primary actor in prison for life. As her role was apparently driving the murderer to the where the victim was, it may well have been the case that it would be hard to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly assisted in the murder. So giving away that half loaf at least assured that the primary actor would be locked up for good. It is hopefully some measure of justice and solace to the family that at least the triggerman was put away.
I sympathize with the grief you have over the loss of your son. No result in the criminal case would ever heal the heartached of that loss by itself. It may take some therapy to reach some point of closure and move forward. I have to think your son would want you and the rest of the family to live their best lives and not let their grief stand in the way of that. We only get a limited time on this earth to make the most of our lives.
It really makes no sense to me that she had two deferred sentences running concurrently; one deferred sentence was closed [CR1538] AND and a Motion to Revoke was made for the other deferred sentence.
How are these same probation violations worthy of a Motion for Revocation for one deferred sentence... BUT not the other?
Can you tell me what type of attorney I need to speak with about this??
