Colorado DA Invokes “Prostitots” Legal Theory To Explain Unfavorable DNA Test Results

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

Denver Post columnist Susan Greene details what looks to be a railroading in progress.

Residents were alarmed last summer by a rash of thefts, trespasses and burglaries in Stonegate, a neighborhood in Douglas County.

Fear turned to panic in July after an intruder reportedly climbed into a second- story window and groped an 8-year-old girl in her bed.

A sicko was on the loose and pressure was on to catch him.

Soon enough, they found their man. Police arrested Tyler Sanchez, a 19-year-old who is both hearing impaired and mentally disabled. After 17 hours of questioning over a 38-hour period, Sanchez confessed, though according to Greene, his confession consisted of no more than the details of the crime the police revealed to him during interrogation. In announcing their success, prosecutors noted Sanchez’s “pattern of escalating behavior,” by which they meant he had been arrested as a juvenile for graffiti, then violated his probation by consuming alcohol. If only they had locked up this monster sooner.

Unfortunately, the state’s case then took a hit when DNA testing on evidence culled from the 8-year-old’s underwear pointed to an unknown male, but excluded Sanchez as that male. No matter. District Attorney Carol Chambers insists she still has the right guy. How can she be so sure? Well, because kids can be such sluts these days.

“With the low-cut jeans that girls wear, she could have picked up anyone’s DNA off any surface her panties touched while they may have been riding up above her pants. I hate those low-cut pants,” Chambers said…

“Depending on how long she had been wearing those panties and where, they could have rubbed up against the back of her chair at school, a restaurant, the couch at home that someone else had been sitting on, a bus seat, someone’s toilet seat if she did not pull them down far enough — there are many ways to get unknown DNA on clothing. Another kid could have snapped the elastic on her underwear — kids do that sort of thing.”

Don’t be too hard on Chambers, though. She probably knows that in Colorado, sending potentially innocent people to prison is how prosecutors become judges.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

32 Responses to “Colorado DA Invokes “Prostitots” Legal Theory To Explain Unfavorable DNA Test Results”

  1. #1 |  Corey | 

    The victim wasn’t able to visually identify or at least rule out the suspect?

  2. #2 |  Nando | 

    This makes me sick, Radley.

    I’m not talking about the molesting of an 8-year old girl (although that’s pretty revolting), but about the way the prosecutor just wants a conviction on her record. It doesn’t matter if it’s the right guy, so long as she can show that she put someone in jail for the crime.

    I hope the arrested kid has a good lawyer (or one that can at least find out where on the panties the DNA was lifted from).

  3. #3 |  ClubMedSux | 

    Funny how when the DNA DOES match you never hear a prosecutor theorize about all the random ways in which DNA could end up on somebody…

  4. #4 |  David | 

    This is disgusting. She’s just picking on a mentally retarded person who’s had minor run-ins with the law to be the fall person. I can hardly think of something more immoral than using her power as prosecutor to imprison people who are incapable of defending themselves from her manipulations.

  5. #5 |  djm | 

    What’s really baffling is how a deaf, mentally disabled teenager somehow managed a string of thefts, burglaries, and a molestation, all while disguised as a stocky 40yo AND not leave his DNA at any of the crime scenes AND hold out for 38 hours of questioning.

    Said Sheriff Weaver in July: “I hope that the residents of Stonegate feel a lot safer knowing that an arrest has been made and that someone will be held accountable for what occurred.”

    Well, I know that I’ll feel safer knowing that SOMEONE has been arrested.

  6. #6 |  Dave Krueger | 

    There is already so much sarcasm in this post that I don’t feel that I have anything to add. Nice work.

  7. #7 |  Lee | 

    So the DA is blaming the victim? I thought that was the attorney for the defendant’s job.

  8. #8 |  Chris Mallory | 

    I don’t know anything about this case or this defendant, but some of the posts here are pretty naive. Don’t let “mentally retarded” make you think that the person is an innocent “Corky” clone. I spent several years working with a developmentally disabled population. Many of the higher functioning ones are truly sociopaths. Rape, assault, even murders were well within their abilities. The ones who had been in the system for many years were as street smart as any ex con.

  9. #9 |  B | 

    This sounds like an episode of South Park with all the funny parts surgically removed.

  10. #10 |  Leah | 

    I like how blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt is beyond the pale, but blaming the molested 8 year old for making the prosecutor’s job harder by wearing low cut jeans (and as a parent, I realize if something is in style it’s harder than you’d think to even find other options to buy) is fine?

  11. #11 |  jppatter | 

    #8

    Ok then, let’s forget the mentally retarded angle to this story for the moment. Yep, it still looks like someone is being railroaded to further a prosecutor’s ambitions. I can’t wait to hear her theory if it turns out the real culprit is still on the loose and hurts someone else. Oh I know, that would just be a copycat.

  12. #12 |  MikeL | 

    Everyone here seems a little too eager to blame the DA in this case. It seems perfectly plausible that this girl in her recklessly low cut jeans picked up DNA from a public seat. These sorts of things are far more common then most people realize. My wife for example, got pregnant from sleeping in a dirty hotel bed while she was away at a bachelorette party. Then only a couple of years later she got herpes from sitting on a public toilet seat. Well, I was skeptical at first, but then our gardener assured me that the exact same thing happened to him.

  13. #13 |  Marty | 

    ‘”I hate those low-cut pants,” Chambers said…’ sounds amazingly similar to ‘He hates those cans!’ which Steve Martin yelled while he was getting shot at in the Jerk. Both are equally logical.

  14. #14 |  Marty | 

    I wanted to give you 20 more thumbs up, MikeL. niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice!

  15. #15 |  TC | 

    Crooked DA……???

    Tell me it aint so Radley!

    We all know that Nifong was the ONLY ONE!!!!!

    Such can be verified with Boyo pattie!

  16. #16 |  MikeL | 

    Marty,

    I have no idea what you’re talking about … neither does my wife … or my gardener. On an unrelated topic, is it true that you can get mouth shaped rug-burns on your neck from wearing a snug fitting turtleneck?

  17. #17 |  Steve Verdon | 

    So the DA is calling an 8 year old child a whore.

    Stay classy Colorado. Stay classy.

  18. #18 |  Marty | 

    MikeL-

    does your wife’s interest in horticulture include a vine tattoo across her lower back? does your gardener know what kind of vine is tattooed on her back?

    I would photograph the mouth-shaped rugburns and send them to Steven Hayne for forensic evaluation… I’m sure he can tell you what’s happening!

  19. #19 |  Steve Verdon | 

    I like how blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt is beyond the pale, but blaming the molested 8 year old for making the prosecutor’s job harder by wearing low cut jeans (and as a parent, I realize if something is in style it’s harder than you’d think to even find other options to buy) is fine?

    My son is 12, and goes to school that goes from kindergarten through 8th grade and believe it or not, the girls in grade 6 and below, their parents manage to find jeans and pants that aren’t low cut.

    Which makes me wonder…does this 8 year old hussy actually have said pants or is the DA just making shit up out of thin air? I’m inclined to go with the latter until I see evidence to the contrary.

  20. #20 |  MM | 

    DA Chambers is pretty much the prototypical crooked local politician. She has used her position as DA to threaten political opponents and she has attempted to tie up the courtrooms of what she sees as unfriendly judges.

    I think Sheriff Weaver unintentionally made the point loud and clear. The peole in that neighborhood will feel safer (whether they are or not), the police and DA get a boost in their solve/conviction rates going into the November election (whether accurate or not), and the thought of knowing whether this kid is the perpetrator or not will get pushed aside for the sake of “Doing Something”.

  21. #21 |  MacGregory | 

    My theory stands. Arrest somebody. Guilt or innocence notwithstanding. TV cameras in focus. Evidence, blah,blah, blah. Rhetoric a jury, thats what matters.

  22. #22 |  InMD | 

    All we can do is hope that for Sanchez’s sake it sounds as preposterous to a jury as it does to everyone else. As long as the defense attorney can get the DNA test in and has a minimal level of competence reasonable doubt shouldn’t be too hard to create.

  23. #23 |  qwints | 

    To be fair, using DNA to implicate someone has a very different impact than using DNA to exclude. There are certainly situations where one person’s DNA being at a scene shouldn’t exclude another person from the crime. This, however, is not one of those situations.

  24. #24 |  Aresen | 

    jppatter | February 23rd, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    Yep, it still looks like someone is being railroaded to further a prosecutor’s ambitions. I can’t wait to hear her theory if it turns out the real culprit is still on the loose and hurts someone else. Oh I know, that would just be a copycat.

    Which is a point that never seems to get brought up in election campaigns: If the prosecutor boosts the conviction stats by convicting the wrong person, that means she is leaving the real criminal on the loose.

  25. #25 |  Griffin3 | 

    Wouldn’t the DA’s statements to the press about how random DNA can show up on anyone’s panties … allow Ms Chambers to be called in to support her statements in any future case involving such evidence? Including cross examination?

  26. #26 |  Duncan | 

    Got it from the toilet seat?

  27. #27 |  Steve Verdon | 

    Got it from the toilet seat?

    Yes, I routinely use my underwear to wipe down public toilet seats.

    What…why are you all looking at me like that…???

  28. #28 |  Vote for the Worst Prosecutor of 2010 | The Agitator | 

    [...] Bill of misdeeds: Probably not the most outrageous misdeed on this list, but Chambers deserves strong consideration for at least giving us one of the most entertaining. When DNA testing showed that the evidence taken from a 9-year-old’s underwear didn’t match the mentally disabled man police had arrested for breaking into her room and groping her, Colorado DA Chambers insisted she still had the right guy. She based her opinion on the rather awesome legal argument that . . .  little girls tend to dress kinda’ slutty these days. [...]

  29. #29 |  Sometimes Things Aren’t Always As They Seem « The Constitution Club | 

    [...] Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct on Chambers part are equally well known. She has been accused of illegally funding her prosecution of a high-profile murder case; she withheld evidence that may have acquitted a convicted killer (Source); and in perhaps the most egregious example concerns a rape case where Chambers ignored DNA evidence that did not match the DNA of the mentally disabled man she was charging. Chambers insisted that regardless of evidence all but proving the man’s innocence, he was guilty. She was convinced of the man’s guilt because the presence of another man’s DNA in the panties of an eight year old little girl could not possibly absolve the defendant because eight year old girls are basically little sluts, and the DNA could have come from anywhere. (Source) [...]

  30. #30 |  Sometimes Things Aren’t Always As They Seem | 

    [...] A former jury foreman who served during one of Chamberstrials has said of her and her office “In the DA’s office’s agenda to prosecuteso overzealously, it seems that the facts of a case aren’t really anobjective.” Other Colorado attorney’s have called Chambers “bloodthirsty” andaccused her of abusing the state’s habitual offender statute. Colorado defenseattorney David Lane says, “I think she’s more interested in serving politicalends than in the ends of justice.” (Source) Perhaps this explains Chambers’ decision to charge a 10year old boy with felony arson because he and a friend accidentally started afire. (Source) Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct on Chambers partare equally well known. She has been accused of illegally funding herprosecution of a high-profile murder case; she withheld evidence that may haveacquitted a convicted killer (Source); and in perhaps the most egregious exampleconcerns a rape case where Chambers ignored DNA evidence that did not match theDNA of the mentally disabled man she was charging. Chambers insisted thatregardless of evidence all but proving the man’s innocence, he was guilty. Shewas convinced of the man’s guilt because the presence of another man’s DNA inthe panties of an eight year old little girl could not possibly absolve thedefendant because eight year old girls are basically little sluts, and the DNAcould have come from anywhere. (Source) [...]

  31. #31 |  Mike Mermel, DNA Fabulist | The Agitator | 

    [...] alternate explanations for the presence of DNA. (Don’t forget Colorado DA Carrol Chambers, who attempted to explain away the DNA found in an 8-year-old victim’s underwear by pointing out how slutty children tend to [...]

  32. #32 |  The 2011 Worst Prosecutor of the Year Award | The Agitator | 

    [...] in an eight-year-old victim of sexual assault didn’t match the guy Chambers wanted to charge. Chambers dismissed the tests on the interesting theory that young girls dress really slutty these days, so anyone’s DNA [...]

Leave a Reply