DENVER, March 3, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- President Obama is a constitutional lawyer and A Just Cause is asking him to review the following arguments concerning the violation of the IRP6's 5th Amendment rights and the Supreme Court's requirement for a verbatim transcript concerning challenges to judicial misconduct. We ask President Obama to use former Federal Judge H.Lee Sarokin's (3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) opinion on the Huffington Post as a quasi-friend of the President brief. Sarokin concluded that the case should have been reversed with or without the missing transcript.(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge/h/lee/sarokin/the_case_of_the_missing_t_1_b_5340397.html)
Court records show that all six IRP6 defendants, who were participating in a joint defense, unanimously swore that Judge Arguello's threats to immediately terminate their defense during a sidebar prompted their decision to testify against their will. Judge Arguello fantastically claimed: "I don't know what my exact phrasing was, but the fact of the matter is, I didn't direct you to do anything." "How can Judge Arguello not remember what she said but state as a matter of fact she didn't compel the IRP6 to testify?" asks Lamont Banks, Executive Director of A Just Cause. Judge Arguello goes on to say that "for whatever reason, whether the parties spoke too far from the microphone or the court reporter took off her headphones, the court reporter did not hear everything that was said and the sidebar and therefore did not transcribe anything besides what is contained in the edited transcript."
"If court reporter Darlene Martinez could not hear as Judge Arguello speculates, why didn't she complain and ask the parties to speak up as the record shows she repeatedly did throughout the trial?" questions Banks. "And what reason would prompt Ms. Martinez or any court reporter to just remove their headphones, shirk their legal responsibility and discontinue recording," muses Banks. "These feeble excuses by Judge Arguello is proof she's concealing her violation of the IRP6's 5th Amendment rights," exclaims Banks. "According to the Supreme Court, any effort by court officers to compel a defendant to testify violates their 5th Amendment right," charges Banks.
"The high court also said in the 1971 case of Mayer v. Chicago that claims of prejudicial misconduct by court officers cannot be fairly judged without a "verbatim" transcript. "It is no coincidence that the sidebar where Judge Arguello compelled the IRP6 defendants to testify is the only missing portion of the transcript in the 17-day trial," says Banks.
The 10th Circuit has repeatedly said that when a court reporter's failure to comply with the Court Reporter's Act to record "verbatim" all proceedings, the case must be reversed "when the unavailability of a transcript makes it impossible for the appellate court to determine whether or not prejudicial error was committed with regard to the challenged action," says, Banks.
10th Circuit judges Baldock, Hartz and Holmes opined that the proceeded under the assumption that the IRP6 defendants were compelled by Judge Arguello. "We are prepared to assume arguendo that Defendants' version of what was said at the sidebar is correct," the judges proclaimed. "However, in doing so, we join [Judge Arguello] in concluding" that they were "still not compelled to take the stand." "Compelled or not compelled?" asks Cliff Stewart of A Just Cause.
The 10th Circuit claimed that the IRP6 voluntarily chose to take the stand because they had a choice of calling FBI Agent John Smith who was seated next to the prosecutor and was listed on the IRP6's witness list.
Court records show that Judge Arguello created the witness quandary. Prior to the sidebar in question, Arguello improperly excluded two critical expert witness by misapplying discovery Rule 16 and in doing so violated the IRP6's Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses in their favor. For details go to http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-jurists-committed-fraud-gain-conviction-says-advocacy-135000353.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma "Our experts were scheduled to take up most of the day and possibly the next day because they were being used to debunk all of the government's witnesses," says David Banks (IRP6 Defendant). Trial records show that the IRP6 did comply with Arguello's order after she excluded their expert witnesses by calling their next witness, Agent Collin Reese of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation who failed to appear according to the subpoena. "Instead of ordering Agent Reese appear, Arguello chose to take her frustration out on the IRP6 and forced them to testify," asserts Stewart.
"Sarokin provided a true version of what happened at trial," says Banks. "We urge President Obama to pull the IRP6's petition for clemency and free these men and their families from this terrible injustice," concludes Banks.
SOURCE A Just Cause