On June 11, 2019 a
Appellate Materials
was filed
involving a dispute between
Weld County District Attorney,
and
Gerald Bucco,
for County Ct or Municipal Appeal
in the District Court of Weld County.
Preview
County Court, Weld County, State of Colorado
Court Address: 901 9"" Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
Mail Address: P.O. Box 2038, Greeley, CO 80632
Phone Number : (970) 475-2400
DATE
CASE HEY Aa
JUL 2 4 2019
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO | WELD counT COLO.
|
Vv.
COURT USE ONLY
Defendant:
GERALD BUCCO Case Number: 19 CV 30518
| County Court: 18M3693
Weld County Court
19" Judicial District, Colorado
——= =
SECOND STATUS REPORT RE: APPELLATE RECORD
THE COURT DETERMINES:
Attached hereto is the “Motion for Sanctions”, which was the subject of the hearing herein on
May 13, 2019. Such has now been filed by defense counsel in the electronic record (JPOD) for
this case.
DATED this July. 2019.
BY TI IE COURT
Lf 1
Chatles S.Unfug
tM
County Court Judge
District Court, Weld County, Colorado DATE FILED: July 22,2019 1044 AM]
Court Address:
901 9th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Plaintiff
GERALD BUCCO,
| Defendant COURT USE ONLY
Stephanie Stout — 32309 Case Number: 18M3693
The Stout Law Firm, LLC
P.O. Box 818
Greeley, CO 80632
Phone: (970) 353-4334 Fax: (970) 797-6434
E-mail: stout@stoutcoloradolaw.com Division: 13
Motion for Sanctions
Stephanie Stout of the Stout Law Firm, LLC, makes a special appearance for purposes of
sanctions regarding discovery violations.
1 Mr. Bucco appeared in court on March 22, 2019, and at that time this court
advised Mr. Bucco that should he not have an attorney, he would have to
represent himself at trial. Mr. Bucco had not appeared with counsel at any
appearance before this one.
Mr. Bucco’s address and phone number were on file with the court at all times
during the pendency of this case.
At no time, either before Arguello advisement or after, did the district attorney’s
office make any attempt to provide Mr. Bucco with discovery in this case.
Mr. Bucco went to the district attorney’s office on May 9, 2019, to find out
generally what was going on with his case. At that time, he was told that he was
required to request discovery in writing and that the request would take 7-10 days.
Alita King of the district attorney’s office expedited that request and Mr. Bucco
was provided a CD containing his discovery on May 10, 2019.
Mr. Bucco has no ability to read or print materials from a CD.
The district attorney's office maintains that the failure to provide discovery is due
to a failure on Mr. Bucco’s part to formally request that discovery. This position
is contrary to C.R.Crim.P. Rule 16 and People v. Alberico, 817 P.2d 573 (Colo.
1991). The duties in Rule 16 are self executing and disclosure is “automatic.” No
written request is required.
When a party is proceeding pro se, these responsibilities become even more
important. While most local attorneys file a written entry and request for
discovery, it is not required by statute, rule, or case law. However, it is routine
practice for attorneys and local attorneys are able to obtain discovery. A pro se
litigant would not have developed a practice to deal with the constant and routine
violations of Rule 16 that are regularly seen in this jurisdiction. Because of that, it
is incumbent upon the district attorney’s office to abide by disclosure rules.
9 The failure to provide even one word of discovery in this case amounts to
outrageous conduct by the government. Outrageous conduct is “conduct that
violates fundamental fairness and is shocking to the universal sense of justice.”
People_v. Medina, 51 P.3d 1006 (Colo. App. 2001). The court makes a
determination of outrageous conduct by “reviewing the totality of the facts.”
People v. McDowell, 219 P.3d 332 (Colo. App. 2009). Outrageous conduct is
seen as a violation of due process. U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973); Bailey v.
People, 630 P.2d 1062 (Colo. 1981).
10. Because of both the violations of Rule 16 and the violations of Mr. Bucco’s right
to due process, effective assistance of counsel, confrontation of witnesses, and fair
trial, this court must impose sanctions. The only appropriate sanction of this
outrageous behavior is dismissal.
THE STOUT LAW FIRM, LLC
Stephanie Stout - 32309
The Stout Law Firm, LLC
P.O. Box 818
Greeley CO 80632
Document Filed Date
July 24, 2019
Case Filing Date
June 11, 2019
Category
County Ct or Municipal Appeal
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
County Court, Weld County, State of Colorado Court Address: 901 9"" Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 Mail Address: P.O. Box 2038, Greeley, CO 80632 Phone Number : (970) 475-2400 DATE CASE HEY Aa JUL 2 4 2019 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO | WELD counT COLO. | Vv. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: GERALD BUCCO Case Number: 19 CV 30518 | County Court: 18M3693 Weld County Court 19" Judicial District, Colorado ——= = SECOND STATUS REPORT RE: APPELLATE RECORD THE COURT DETERMINES: Attached hereto is the “Motion for Sanctions”, which was the subject of the hearing herein on May 13, 2019. Such has now been filed by defense counsel in the electronic record (JPOD) for this case. DATED this July. 2019. BY TI IE COURT Lf 1 Chatles S.Unfug tM County Court Judge District Court, Weld County, Colorado DATE FILED: July 22,2019 1044 AM] Court Address: 901 9th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Plaintiff GERALD BUCCO, | Defendant COURT USE ONLY Stephanie Stout — 32309 Case Number: 18M3693 The Stout Law Firm, LLC P.O. Box 818 Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: (970) 353-4334 Fax: (970) 797-6434 E-mail: stout@stoutcoloradolaw.com Division: 13 Motion for Sanctions Stephanie Stout of the Stout Law Firm, LLC, makes a special appearance for purposes of sanctions regarding discovery violations. 1 Mr. Bucco appeared in court on March 22, 2019, and at that time this court advised Mr. Bucco that should he not have an attorney, he would have to represent himself at trial. Mr. Bucco had not appeared with counsel at any appearance before this one. Mr. Bucco’s address and phone number were on file with the court at all times during the pendency of this case. At no time, either before Arguello advisement or after, did the district attorney’s office make any attempt to provide Mr. Bucco with discovery in this case. Mr. Bucco went to the district attorney’s office on May 9, 2019, to find out generally what was going on with his case. At that time, he was told that he was required to request discovery in writing and that the request would take 7-10 days. Alita King of the district attorney’s office expedited that request and Mr. Bucco was provided a CD containing his discovery on May 10, 2019. Mr. Bucco has no ability to read or print materials from a CD. The district attorney's office maintains that the failure to provide discovery is due to a failure on Mr. Bucco’s part to formally request that discovery. This position is contrary to C.R.Crim.P. Rule 16 and People v. Alberico, 817 P.2d 573 (Colo. 1991). The duties in Rule 16 are self executing and disclosure is “automatic.” No written request is required. When a party is proceeding pro se, these responsibilities become even more important. While most local attorneys file a written entry and request for discovery, it is not required by statute, rule, or case law. However, it is routine practice for attorneys and local attorneys are able to obtain discovery. A pro se litigant would not have developed a practice to deal with the constant and routine violations of Rule 16 that are regularly seen in this jurisdiction. Because of that, it is incumbent upon the district attorney’s office to abide by disclosure rules. 9 The failure to provide even one word of discovery in this case amounts to outrageous conduct by the government. Outrageous conduct is “conduct that violates fundamental fairness and is shocking to the universal sense of justice.” People_v. Medina, 51 P.3d 1006 (Colo. App. 2001). The court makes a determination of outrageous conduct by “reviewing the totality of the facts.” People v. McDowell, 219 P.3d 332 (Colo. App. 2009). Outrageous conduct is seen as a violation of due process. U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973); Bailey v. People, 630 P.2d 1062 (Colo. 1981). 10. Because of both the violations of Rule 16 and the violations of Mr. Bucco’s right to due process, effective assistance of counsel, confrontation of witnesses, and fair trial, this court must impose sanctions. The only appropriate sanction of this outrageous behavior is dismissal. THE STOUT LAW FIRM, LLC Stephanie Stout - 32309 The Stout Law Firm, LLC P.O. Box 818 Greeley CO 80632