August 6th, 2009

Last modified on 2009-08-07 03:53:46 GMT. 1 comment. Top.

Pre-trial readiness hearing (8/5/2009)

Yesterday was the trial readiness hearing and I represented myself before the court. The Judge in Division E has changed from Judge Ensor to Judge Bryan.

I told the court I was not prepared for trial, that I had fired my attorney, my logic for firing my attorney as well as my desire to protect my right to be represented by an attorney in this case against these serious charges.  I also advised the court that I am not an attorney and that I have been interviewing replacement attorneys. As of August, 5th I had interview a half dozen attorneys and I had run into a significant obstacle: With the trial schedule set for August 10th none of the attorneys believed they could prepare for trial in time and ethically represent my interests. I made the court aware of this information and after reminding the court that on July 14th I had filed a letter with the court both notifying them that I had fired my attorney and asking for a continuance I once again asked for a continuance to secure representation.

The Deputy District Attorney notified the court that he was unprepared to comment on my request for a continuance due to some Colorado Revised Statute that required the D.A. to notify the “victims” and provide an opportunity for them to comment on the request for continuance. I did send a copy of my letter to the District Attorney’s office on July 14th, 2009 through the U.S. Mail when I filed my letter with the court.

The Deputy District Attorney also stated that I had contradicted myself saying that I had spoken with 4 attorneys and then 6 attorneys. I interrupted the D.A. and clarified that I had stated “half a dozen” and “six” attorneys. The Deputy D.A. then rebuffed my interruption telling me that he had not interrupted me and would expect that I would not interrupt him. I should have waited my turn but I did not appreciate the misstatements of facts. If I were an attorney I would have asked the court recorder to read my exact statements back for the D.A. when it was my turn.

The Deputy District Attorney continued to question my veracity by stating that he was skeptical that I had interviewed any attorneys or that I had interviewed attorneys admitted to the Colorado Bar.

The Judge admitted that he was the Judge who had signed the search warrant for our home and property and was glad that the motion to suppress was resolved (Denied).

The Judge stated that I had clearly expressed my desire to be represented by trial but that he was unable to rule on the continuance due to the Statute raised by the D.A. that required the “victims” to be notified and given an opportunity to comment.

The Judge then advised me that he was going to set a new hearing on Friday, August 7th, 2009 at 8:30 am and that he wanted me to:

• Be represented by an attorney to argue for the continuance, OR

• Provide an affidavit from an attorney that if the Judge granted the continuance that the attorney would be willing to represent me in this case.

I informed the court that I did not know what an “affidavit” was and asked the Judge if a signed letter from an attorney stating that if the continuance was granted they would be willing to represent me would suffice. The Judge agreed that a signed letter would be acceptable and then reiterated his first preference that I should be represented by an attorney on Friday morning and that an affidavit was preferred over a letter.

My prior attorney was in the court room throughout this process. I do not know what his purpose was as he had concluded his business with the court prior to my case being called up before the court. I suspect he was interested in any information that could be used against him or some other more devious purpose.

When I returned home I immediately set about the process of contacting the attorneys I had interviewed in an attempt to secure the proper documentation for Friday morning’s hearing. I immediately learned that the attorney who was at the top of my short list was in court involved in a trial and would be very busy for the next few days… I sent a FAX to his office explaining the situation and requesting he supply documentation, if possible.

I was then side-tracked as I took a call from an assistant to the Attorney who had been assigned to investigate my complaint against my prior attorney. The request was for a copy of my fee agreement with my prior attorney. I ran into technical challenges that ate up hours as I attempted to send a FAX of the fee agreement. At about 5pm I threw my hands up in dispair and called it a day. It had been a long and trying day, I was asleep by 8pm.

I woke up at 2am on Thursday (8/6/2009) and immediately began to resolve the technical issues. The sleep helped and within an hour or two I had the FAX of the fee agreement successfully transmitted to the investigation attorney.

I then returned to contacting the attorneys I had interviewed and given the early hour I sent Emails out. By 7 am one of the attorneys had called me, agreed to provide the needed documentation. By 9am I had received a FAX of the documentation I needed for Friday’s hearing.

In some respects the courts request that put me through this fire drill provided a great service to me. The attorney that responded quickly obviously moved to the top of the short list. However, I do not want to make the same mistake twice… hire an attorney in a panic and not choose the best attorney to represent my defense. The amount of time provided by the court was clearly too short as attorneys who are any good are incredibly busy people.

Once we move through this request for continuance process I will carefully review the attorneys on the short list and make the best selection possible.

Update: 9:40pm

The attorney who was on the top of my list called me and he will be sending an Email that I may print out and provide to the court in the morning. (I guess using this process did not necessarily make the attorney selection process all that much easier… the short list has been reduced from 3 to 2)