For over 30 years, Senior Support Services ("SSS"), a non-profit organization, has provided housing-assistance, daily nutrition, transportation, and day-shelter services to frail, hungry, and homeless senior citizens in the Denver-Metropolitan-Area. SSS applied for funding under both the "Older Americans' Act" and "Older Coloradoans' Act." After the Colorado Department of Human Services denied that request, SSS retained Walta, Gehring, Harms & Dingle. Sean Dingle and Jason Harms recently conducted a multi-day hearing before the Office of Administrative Courts in this matter, which is currently under advisement.
We represent individuals, non-profits, and small businesses in a wide variety of practice areas. All of our clients not only receive personalized attention, but also benefit from our vast experience. For more information, peruse this website or contact us directly at 303 953 5999.
Another win for Walta, Gehring, Harms & Dingle -- and even more importantly, another win for one of our valued clients: Sean Dingle and Jason Harms successfully defended a couple from Loveland in a Permanent Restraining Order action. The complainant, along with her family members, had harassed the couple for several months. At the hearing to determine whether the requested restraining order should be made permanent, Sean Dingle and Jason Harms argued -- and proved -- that the allegations were both spurious and unfounded. The court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice (finding the complainant had failed to establish any basis, whatsoever, for the issuance of a restraining order).
On February 8, 2010, Mark Walta filed an amici curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court, on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar (CCDB), supporting the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed in Al-Turki v. Colorado, No. 09-700.
The Al-Turki case, which has received considerable media attention, involves important issues regarding a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to challenge potential jurors for cause. For more information, or if you need assistance, contact the experienced and accomplished appellate and trial lawyers at Walta, Gehring, Harms & Dingle.
Criminal Charges Dismissed – another win for Walta, Gehring, Harms & Dingle . . . and, even more importantly, another win for one of our clients:
Our client was charged with Assault and Disturbing the Peace (Domestic Violence).
We worked – as we do on every case – extremely hard on our client’s behalf: we filed and argued motions; we met with the City Attorney several times; and we sent the City Attorney a “packet” of materials (e.g., affidavits).
Consequently, we persuaded the City Attorney to dismiss the charges against our client. Needless to say, the client is thrilled.
The next time you need a lawyer, give us a call.
Sean Dingle and Jason Harms – in conjunction with Robert Hoban (Martin, Lubitz & Hyman, LLC) – are currently litigating two hotly contested land-use cases against the Adams County Board of County Commissioners. Dingle, Harms, and Hoban represent the Association of Homeowners for Open Accountable Government. The lawsuits relate to the Board’s decision to approve / enable the construction and operation of a municipal waste landfill virtually in the middle of a residential development in unincorporated Adams County.
Christopher Gehring – on a contract basis for John McClure (McClure & Eggleston, LLC) – drafted an extensive (18 pp.) memorandum of law. The memo addressed how to determine the number of “occurrences” under an insurance policy. McClure recently sent the following email: “Settled the case for $250,000 based upon the insurer’s reaction to your memo. After initially offering only $200,000, they bid against themselves and made the $250,000 offer. A great result with your good help.”
After several months of planning, we – Mark Walta, Christopher Gehring, Jason Harms, and Sean Dingle – have formed a new boutique law firm. With a combined 47 years of legal experience, we have – collectively – conducted over 150 jury trials, represented clients at over 100 mediations and settlement conferences, and handled over 200 appeals. We will specialize in civil litigation, criminal defense, professional licensure defense & disciplinary matters, appellate litigation, and contract work for other attorneys. Later this summer (details TBA), we will host an “open house,” in part to show-case our fantastic new office, located at 1912 Logan Street in Denver, Colorado.
On May 28, 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted revisions to C.A.R. 28 and 32. The revised and inserted rule, titled C.A.R. 32(f) – Certificate of Compliance, provides as follows: Each brief shall include, on a separate page immediately behind the caption page, a certificate that the brief complies with all requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32. Form 6 is a suggested form for a certificate of compliance, use of which shall be regarded as meeting the requirements of C.A.R. 32(a)(3) and C.A.R. 32(f). Colorado’s appellate courts will enforce this new requirement for all briefs filed on or after June 8, 2009. For more information, contact the experienced and knowledgeable appellate lawyers at Walta, Gehring, Harms & Dingle LLC. We are very familiar with the appellate rules, have considerable experience with the complex electronic filing requirements, and have handled a wide variety of legal issues on appeal.
-C.R.E. 404(b) Prior Bad Act Evidence; Yusem v. People, --- P.3d ---, 2009 WL 1741973 (Colo. 2009): A jury convicted the defendant of felony menacing. The trial court had admitted the prosecution’s prior bad act evidence under C.R.E. 404(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed. On June 22, 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Justice Rice wrote the majority opinion (Justice Coats wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justice Eid joined). Held: (1) the 404(b) prior act evidence’s probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; and (2) the trial court’s error in admitting the evidence was not harmless.
Commentary: Evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) poses a lot of problems for a criminal defendant. Most problematically, it gives the jury a very bad impression of the defendant’s character (i.e., because the defendant did “x” before, he probably did “x” this time as well). Moreover, the admission of 404(b) evidence in Colorado’s trial courts has expanded considerably in recent years – and the Court of Appeals has affirmed more often than not. Hopefully, therefore, the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Yusem will serve to “cut-back” on the admission of 404(b) evidence. For more information, contact the experienced and knowledgeable criminal – trial and appellate – lawyers at Walta, Gehring, Harms & Dingle LLC. As former public defenders and prosecutors, we have litigated a wide variety of criminal cases involving all classes of felonies. We also handle DUI’s and misdemeanors.
-Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation; Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, --- U.S. ---, 2009 WL 1789468 (2009): A jury convicted the defendant distributing cocaine. The trial court had admitted certificates of analysis, which had been sworn to by analysts at a state laboratory. Those analysts, however, did not testify at trial. On June 25, 2009, the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion (Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion; Justice Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Roberts, Breyer, and Alito joined). Held: (1) the certificates, as affidavits, fell within the “core class of testimonial statements” covered by the Confrontation Clause; (2) the analysts were not removed from the Clause’s coverage based on the theories that they were not “accusatory” or “conventional” witnesses; (3) the analysts were not removed from the Clause’s coverage based on the theory that their testimony consisted of scientific, neutral testing; (4) the certificates were not removed from the Clause’s coverage based on the theory that they were business or official records; and (5) the defendant’s ability to subpoena the analysts did not relieve the prosecution from its obligation to produce the analysts at trial.
Commentary: A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. In certain situations, however, the prosecution may be allowed to introduce documents into evidence, without simultaneously producing a witness at trial. Thus, the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause presents a “fertile area” for litigation – at both the trial and on appeal (it is, therefore, very important to make a good “record” in the trial court). The Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz appears to expand the Sixth Amendment’s protections – and its reach may extend beyond the laboratory-reports context. For more information, contact the experienced and knowledgeable criminal – trial and appellate – lawyers at Walta, Gehring, Harms & Dingle LLC. As former public defenders and prosecutors, we have litigated a wide variety of criminal cases involving all classes of felonies. We also handle DUI’s and misdemeanors.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/barton-31959-state-sentence.html?wap=1
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/newsarchive/11122724/detail.html
Helping Clients Navigate the Entire Legal Process: from the preliminary investigation, through the trial, and if necessary, throughout the appellate process.