Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Mark Hurlbert was a contract deputy district attorney assigned to a high-profile first-degree murder case. Throughout the case, the presiding judge issued a series of unfavorable rulings for the prosecution.
Less than two months before the case was to go to trial, the elected district attorney circulated to the prosecution team a link to an online petition, which called for an investigation and the possible removal of the judge due to an alleged conflict of interest involving the judge’s former spouse.
Hurlbert was concerned that the allegations could, if true, amount to the judge’s undisclosed conflicts of interest. Rather than raise the matter with the judge or with the opposing party, Hurlbert endorsed the proposal of another member of the prosecution team that the judge’s former spouse be interviewed regarding the allegations.
Even as the prosecution team discussed dismissing the case, Hurlbert advocated for investigating the judge’s state of mind regarding potential conflicts that could have informed his rulings. Hurlbert then learned that the elected district attorney planned to have her office’s investigator conduct the interview. Hurlbert, who had more experience as a prosecutor than the elected district attorney, was concerned that the investigation should be independent.
Even so, he didn’t advise the district attorney to use an independent entity for the investigation. Nor did he take affirmative steps to deter or prevent the district attorney from proceeding with the interview. Rather, Hurlbert discussed the interview with the office’s investigator.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Hurlbert’s stipulation to discipline and publicly censured him. The public censure, which takes into account significant mitigating factors, is effective Sept. 30.
Robert Weiner, a former prosecutor who is in private practice, agreed to work as a special deputy district attorney on a high-profile first-degree murder case that had already been pending for several months.
After Weiner was sworn in to work on the case, the presiding judge issued a series of unfavorable rulings for the prosecution. Soon after, the elected district attorney circulated to the prosecution team a link to an online petition. The petition called for an investigation and the possible removal of the judge due to an alleged conflict of interest centering on the judge’s former spouse.
Concerned that these allegations could, if true, amount to the judge’s undisclosed conflicts of interest, Weiner suggested that the judge’s former spouse be interviewed regarding the allegations. This suggestion amounted to a reckless attempt to uncover a conflict or other information that might be cause for the judge’s recusal. Weiner effectively advocated for investigating the judge’s state of mind informing the judge’s prosecution-adverse rulings.
Later, when Weiner learned that the elected district attorney intended to have her office’s investigator, rather than an independent entity, conduct the interview, Weiner didn’t take affirmative steps to prevent the elected district attorney from going forward with the interview.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Weiner’s stipulation to discipline and publicly censured him, effective Sept. 30.