After a humiliating public censure by a disciplinary panel last December, we had hoped that suburban District Attorney Carol Chambers would fly a straight and narrow course. So it’s disquieting, to say the least, to find her at the center of another ethical controversy.
This time Chambers has been accused of trying to intimidate a judge. In an e-mail last month, she appeared to outline how she’d punish judicial behavior that didn’t meet her preferences. She warned if any judge was overtly hostile toward her prosecutors or made “inappropriate” comments about cases or victims, “there absolutely will be docket control problems in that division.”
Chambers, first elected in 2004, prosecutes crimes in Arapahoe, Douglas, Lincoln and Elbert counties. A prosecutor should be committed to the efficient and fair administration of justice, but Chambers could create crippling delays by asking for trials in every case, regardless of whether that was a prudent approach.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s attorney regulation counsel is investigating, and we urge a thorough review.
James O’Connor, public defender for the district, was copied on some of Chambers’ e-mails. He interpreted her remarks as a “veiled threat” that would have a “chilling effect” on judges. He wrote a letter to William Sylvester, chief judge of the district, identifying Judge Valeria Spencer as the object of Chambers’ wrath and asked Sylvester not to tolerate it. “I do not believe this is an instance where the elected district attorney is innocuously trying to be helpful and ‘prevent problems,’ but rather a blatant attempt to intimidate this judge,” he wrote.
Chambers told 9News she was trying only to address specific incidents concerning a certain judge. “I’m not trying to threaten anyone,” she said. The e-mail language, however, seems quite clear.
It wouldn’t be the first time Chambers used her office inappropriately. In the 2006 case that ended in her censure, she threatened to unleash a grand jury on a bill collector seeking payment from fellow Republican officeholder Laurett Barrentine. While it’s true that Barrentine was a victim of identity theft and should not have been targeted, Chambers was out of line in how she handled the matter. She should have recognized the error of her arrogant ways and apologized. Instead, she was defiant and unappreciative of how the disciplinary panel tried to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Chambers is up for re-election in 2008, and voters may end up with the final say on her tenure. In any case, her threat to manipulate the docket cannot be allowed to stand.
