A judge’s order forcing prosecutors to reveal the home addresses of law-enforcement witnesses in a death-penalty case not only jeopardizes those officers and their families but potentially all law-enforcement officers because of the precedent it sets, the Colorado Supreme Court has been told.
Arapahoe County prosecutors have asked the Supreme Court to reverse District Court Judge Stanley Brinkley’s order that they disclose the residential addresses of the law-enforcement officers who may testify in the sentencing phase of the death-penalty case against Alejandro Perez, 29.
Perez is accused of the first-degree murder of Jeffrey Heird at the Limon Correctional Facility on March 28, 2004.
In ordering the home addresses be given the defense, Brinkley said under Colorado law, prosecutors must divulge current addresses of witnesses and that “implies a residential address.”
Giving the home addresses out, said Brinkley, allows defense lawyers to “investigate a witness within his community to ascertain the witness’ character, habits and standing … for purposes of confrontation, cross-examination and possible impeachment.”
David Lane, a lawyer for Perez, said Brinkley is simply following the law. Prosecutors can remedy the situation by seeking a protective order which are routinely granted by judges throughout Colorado, he said.
Under a protective order, the defense lawyers are given the addresses with the specific instructions not to share that information with their clients, said Lane.
“We need access to these guys, believe it or not,” Lane said of the law enforcement officers. Lane said he wouldn’t oppose a protective order limiting access solely to the defense lawyers.
But Paul Wolff, a veteran Colorado appellate prosecutor, told the justices in a motion filed Monday that Brinkley’s order is unheard of in Colorado.
Normally, as they did here, the prosecution provides the business addresses of officers.
Brinkley’s order poses a safety risk to the officers and their families, said Wolff.
“Peace officers provide an invaluable service to the community. They place their safety at risk every day as part of their duties and responsibilities with which they are entrusted. These public servants and their families should be protected from — not subjected to — additional risk in their personal lives,” said Wolff in his motion.
More concerning, Wolff added, was that Brinkley indicated that in every criminal case, the prosecution has an obligation to disclose law-enforcement witnesses’ residential addresses as part of the mandatory disclosure.
Such a sweeping declaration “sets a dangerous precedent” and could affect every officer in the state, said the Arapahoe County appeal.
In letters to Arapahoe County prosecutors, the president of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, Chris Johnson; Douglas County Sheriff David Weaver; and Ari Zavaras, executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, strongly oppose release of the home addresses.
“I fail to understand how releasing peace officers’ personal information to a non-law-enforcement entity aids in a defense strategy,” said Zavaras. “It is critical that the safety of our peace officers be at the forefront of any decision involving the balance of privacy protections against the goals to be accomplished in violating that protection. No guarantee can be offered that the personal information of these peace officers will not fall into the wrong hands.”
Wolff said providing the home addresses of officers and their families is even more concerning because Perez is an inmate accused of killing a fellow inmate and other witnesses in the case include other prisoners.
These are all people deemed too dangerous to be free in society, said the motion.
“These individuals are not, however, without connection to the outside world. As such, law-enforcement officers who work in the Department of Corrections are exposed to heightened risk,” said Wolff.
The Supreme Court was told that Brinkley’s order puts both officers and prosecutors in a difficult dilemma.
It forces peace officers to choose between endangering themselves and their families and zealously fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as officers. It forces prosecutors to weigh the safety of their police witnesses and their families against calling the officers as witnesses in the death penalty case.
Arapahoe County prosecutors ended their appeal by alleging that Perez “is an extremely dangerous individual.
“Defendant’s criminal history, as well as the allegations against him in this case, demonstrate as such,” the motion to the justices said.
Carol Chambers, district attorney for the 18th Judicial District, opted to seek the death penalty against Perez in October 2006.
At the time, she declined to discuss the specifics in the case but did talk generally about aggravating factors that sometimes play into death-penalty deliberations.
Chambers wouldn’t say whether Heird, 38 at the time he died, was a witness or a prison informant.
“It has (those) ramifications, but I can’t tell you what they are,” she said.
“It used to be that people were not afraid to step up and talk to police, report crime and testify if needed,” Chambers said. “Unfortunately, we are finding more and more people who are afraid to do that.”
Howard Pankratz: 303-954-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com
