News

In a recent phone call from Seth Brigham to Boulder Channel 1 news , he said that he had retained famed civil rights attorney, David Lane, and planned on suing the city of Boulder for arresting him again. Below is tonights email from Brigham and court documents for discovery. (In full disclosure David Lane is the personal attorney of Jann Scott and Boulder Channel 1 in matters of civil rights violations by the city of Boulder. Seth Brigham has been a columnist for Boulder Channel 1 and has produced videos for us)

Atty David Lane

My lawyer requested all evidence from the prosecutor and from the police department files, has or had, three weeks ago!

The prosecutor has refused to release all the evidence! Nada, nothing.

Tom Carr is essentially the supervisor to the prosecutor.

>My case is open, the charges have not been dropped.

My lawyer is filing a motion this week, but, I think one should wonder about our “Justice System” in Boulder and the ethics of our City Attorney, Tom Carr.

Why is it necessary? What is our City Attorney afraid of?

He was one who wrote up the most draconian Press Release concerning my arrest, and the charges against me regarding the “incident” on June 3rd, 2011.

A defendant may file a motion requesting a subpoena to call forth all witnesses and evidence that could favorably determine the outcome of the case, at no cost.

George Thomas, a professor of criminal procedure at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said he has not heard of a case where prosecutors denied a defendant all access to probable cause and doubts such a practice would be found constitutional.
He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause must be present before a defendant can be arrested.
He said it is only logical that the defense should be able to challenge the adequacy of the probable cause.
And, I, Seth Brigham, have always maintained that I was arrested without probable cause, and, in fact, the police we’re abusing their positions, had no probable cause to question the homeless group, ID them and do background checks. And, in any case, I did not obstruct any police investigation.
For all of Tom Carr’s harsh rhetoric and lies concerning the case, no wonder he fears to release evidence yet received by my attorney, for example, taped interviews of two witnesses and photographs of the scene.
He is full of himself and was reckless with his statements. He spoke to my attorney in response to my attorney’s “upset” over the unethical nature of his Press Release.
He said he would not apologize or correct his statements in any way. I feel a need to redeem my name.
I’ve been able to find at least four witnesses that seem to have a recollection of the arrest much like mine.
The prosecutor, who told my lawyer that this deferred prosecution had no bearing on a possible civil suit I might pursue in the future, I find it disconcerting that she will now not cooperate.
TOM??? Do you have a response as to why you are circumventing my rights?
Seth Brigham
3383 Madsion Avenue #W225
Boulder, Colorado
80303
720-298-6711”

Defendant in this case agreed to a Deferred Prosecution on 8-17-11. The following week, Defense Counsel informed the City Prosecutor that we wished to move forward with further discovery, in particular any contents of the case file maintained at the Boulder Police Department, whether or not those materials had yet been turned over to the City Prosecutor’s Office for its file. We are aware that such a separate file is routinely maintained in Municipal Court Criminal cases and the materials sometimes not turned over until the eve of trial. We were informed by the Prosecutor Ms. Michels that she considered the case files and materials no longer discoverable because the Deferred Prosecution is in effect. Defendant’s position is that the case has not been dismissed and is in fact subject to reopen on the Prosecution’s judgment call. There is nothing precluding continuing investigation and preparation for possible trial by either party to the case. We therefore maintain that discovery rights have not been waived or abandoned by the Defendant and should be honored as with any pending case not yet dismissed. The only way the Prosecution could cut off further discovery rights under the case would be full dismissal, which has not happened. Delaying discovery burdens and prejudices Defendant’s right to prepare for possible trial and to be ready should that eventuality become necessary. There can be no claim of prejudice or unfair burden on the Prosecution if this request is granted, because these are just rights the Defendant has in any pending criminal case, and concomitant duties of the Prosecution in any pending criminal case.

We therefore ask the Court to Order continuing discovery of all relevant materials in the case, including all material in the Police Department’s case file, including photos, interview tapes and/or notes, and all materials.
Respectfully,

_______________________________
Philip Bienvenu #10412
Attorney for Defendant