Advocacy group, A Just Cause,
questions why petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied by United States
Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit requesting that the courts resolve
issues of federal court reporter allegedly omitting 200 pages of
transcripts from the criminal trial of the IRP6.
Denver, Colorado (PRWEB) October 24, 2013
Court records show that Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon, Appellant Attorney
for the IRP6, filed a motion with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
requesting their intervention in resolving issues surrounding the
alleged missing transcripts in the IRP6 case. The petition for Writ of
Mandamus addresses issues critical to the appeal of the IRP6 case.
Attorney Solomon requested that the 10th Circuit Court, order Court
Reporter Darlene Martinez to release the complete unedited/verbatim
transcripts and/or any electronic, digital and audio recordings related
to transcript in question. (Petition for Writ of Mandamus 28 U. S. C
1651(a), Fed. R. App. P. 21 - D.C. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA Nos. 11-1487,
11-1488, 11-1489, 11-1490, 11-1491 & 11-1492)
The Court Order from the United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth
Circuit states, “Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton Stewart,
Gary Walker, David Zirpolo and David Banks have filed a petition for a
Writ of Mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to
release an unedited transcript of a bench conference from their jury
trial. Petitioners filed several motions related to this transcript
issue in the district court and all of them were denied.” The court
order further states, “In their mandamus petition, petitioners contend
that they 'cannot perfect their appeal without the verbatim transcript.
(Pet. at 22) But this statement does not make sense given the procedural
posture of their case. Petitioners each filed an appeal in 2011. Their
consolidated appeals have been fully briefed, and petitioners raised the
transcript issue in their appeals. The consolidated appeals were
submitted to a panel for disposition on May 7, 2013.'” (Appellate Case:
13-1416 Document: 01019142130, Case 1:09-cr-00266-CMA, 10/16/13 USDC
Colorado)
The petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon
alleges, on October 11, 2011, an unedited transcript of the bench
conference was immediately requested by the petitioners. The Court
Reporter, Darlene M. Martinez, provided a transcript but not the actual
bench conference conversation requested. Solomon asserts, “The verbatim
transcript is material to the issue concerning the violation of the
petitioners Fifth Amendment rights. The failure to inspect or be
provided the complete verbatim transcript prejudices the petitioners
defense (and) makes it impossible to perfect their appeal and deprives
them of due process of law and warrants a reversal on their
convictions.” (28 U. S. C 1651(a), Fed. R. App. P. 21PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDAMUS, Oct 8, 2013)
The Court Order of Denial asserts, “It is possible that petitioners
may not have presented all of the arguments in their briefs on appeal
that they now assert in their mandamus petition, but they had the
opportunity to litigate those issues in their appeals. Petitioners have
filed a frivolous mandamus petition that seeks relief that they already
sought or could have sought in their appeals. The petition for a Writ of
Mandamus is denied.” (Appellate Case: 13-1416 Document: 01019142130,
Case 1:09-cr-00266-CMA, 10/16/13 USDC Colorado)
“A Just Cause questions why the courts would deny this petition under
the auspice that the defendants have made this request before", asserts
Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. "When new evidence was allegedly discovered
in the transcripts of the last day of trial where Judge Arguello
allegedly states that 200 pages of the unedited transcript would not be
made available to the defendants, Ms. Solomon owed it to her clients
(IRP6) to petition the courts. A Just Cause supports Attorney Solomon
in her argument, because if there are 200 pages of a transcript
allegedly missing, this is potentially critical trial material necessary
for the defendants appeal process”, adds Thurman. “A Just Cause
questions why the Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been denied in the
case of the IRP6 case when the petition appears to meet the criteria for
such a petition?”, Thurman ponders.
Nolo's Plain English Law Dictionary defines a A (Writ of) Mandamus
as, "...an order from a court to an inferior government official
ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official
duties or correct an abuse of discretion."
The IRP6 case concerns an African-American company (IRP Solutions
Corporation) in Colorado that developed the Case Investigative Life
Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and
local law enforcement. The IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L Walker,
Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and David A
Banks) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire
fraud. The defense argues that key elements of the court transcript,
which are key to the appeal, are missing. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA)
In response to the Writ of Mandamus filed by Attorney Solomon, the
court order states, “The extraordinary relief of a Writ of Mandamus is
not a substitute for an appeal, and it is not a vehicle to relieve
persons of the consequences of their previous decision not to pursue
available procedures and remedies.”)Weston v. Mann (In re Weston), 18
F.3d 860, 864 (10th Cir. 1994))
Attorney Solomon attests that, repeated requests for the verbatim
record were made during trial and appellant attorneys, Charles H. Torres
and Gwendolyn M. Solomon, filed various motions requesting a copy of
the verbatim transcript along with requests for inspection of the
unedited transcript to ascertain as to what transpired at the bench
conference, but all motions were denied. (Docs. 631, 635, 636, 557
pp.138: 21-25, 139: 1-22, 149: 21-25, 150: 1-11, 618 pp. 2062: 22-25,
2063: 1-11; Vol I. pp. 965, 980, 1001, 1120, 3022: 22-25, 3023)
Subsequently, numerous post-trial motions were filed by attorneys
requesting a hearing to resolve the transcript issue with the court
reporter, but those requests were also denied by Judge Christine
Arguello. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA)
The case of IRP Solutions (IRP6) is currently under appeal (US
District Court for the District of Colorado, Honorable Christine M.
Arguello, D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA; Case Nos: NO. 11-1487, Case Nos.
11-1488, 11-1489, 11-1490, 11-1491 an 11-1492). Appellate Court panel
includes the Honorable Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock, Honorable Judge
Harris L. Hartz, and Honorable Judge Jerome A. Holmes
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to
http://www.freetheirp6.org.
Related press releases:
http://www.a-justcause.com/#!press-release/c21pq
