DISTRICT COURT, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO
Court Address: 1060 E. Second Ave., Durango, CO81301
Phone Number: (970) 247-2304 / ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO
v.
Defendant: MARK ALLEN REDWINE
Christian Champagne - District Attorney, #36833
Matthew Durkin, Special Deputy District Attorney, #28615
Fred Johnson, Special Deputy District Attorney, #42479
P.O. Drawer 3455, Durango, Colorado81302
Phone Number: (970) 247-8850
Fax Number: (970) 259-0200 / Case Number: 17 CR 343
PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S INVOCATION of RIGHTS TO SILENCE AND COUNSEL AND REVOCATION OF PRIOR RELEASES AND WAIVERS [D-2]
[public access]

NOW COME the People, by and through Christian Champagne, District Attorney, in the County of La Plata, and hereby file their Response to Defendant’s Invocation of Rights to Silence and Counsel and Revocation of Prior Releases and Waivers [D-2]as follows:

  1. Defendant’s counsel requests an order requiring that any law enforcement personnel or their agents must obtain their consent before attempting to contact or interview the defendant and must give defendant’s attorney a “reasonable opportunity to be present prior to any contact by any of those agents with Mr. Redwine...”
  1. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be waived by a defendant, so long as relinquishment of the right is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 US 778, 129 S.Ct. 2079 (2009); Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 292, n. 4, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).People v. Ross, 821 P.2d 816, 820 (Colo. 1992).
  1. The defendant may waive the right to counsel whether or not he is already represented by counsel; the decision to waive need not itself be counseled. Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 US 778, 129 S.Ct. 2079 (2009); Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 352–353, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990).
  1. If the defendant initiates communications with police, waives his rights and makes voluntary statements, no constitutional rights are violated. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983). People v. Pierson, 670 P.2d 770 (Colo. 1983).
  1. Police officers are not lawyers and are not bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 US 778, 129 S.Ct. 2079, 2087 (2009)(“[T]he Constitution does not codify the ABA's Model Rules, and does not make investigating police officers lawyers”).
  1. The defendant seeks an order prohibiting any jail personnel, including counselors, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, and presumably any medical personnel, from conducting any evaluations which requires talking to him.
  1. The motion filed by the defendant seeks to control the actions of the La Plata County Sheriff’s office. The District Attorney’s Office does not represent or control the La Plata County Sheriff’s Office. These motions are more appropriately directed to the La Plata County Attorney’s office, but have apparently not been served on said party as of the writing of this motion.

Respectfully submitted this August 18, 2017.

CHRISTIAN CHAMPAGNE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

6th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

/s/ Christian Champagne

Christian Champagne #36833

District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 8/18/2017, I delivered a true and correct copy of the foregoing to the parties of record via e-service

/s/ Christian Champagne

Christian Champagne