http://www.kjct8.com/content/news/Group-looks-to-start-campaign-against-retaining-judge-who-overturned-McFaddens-conviction-479225383.html
Group working to stop retention of judge who freed formerly convicted sex offender
By Joey Prechtl
Posted: Mon 9:47 PM, Apr 09, 2018 |
Updated: Tue 10:58 AM, Apr 10, 2018
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (KKCO/KJCT)-- A local group is trying to oust the judges who overturned a more than 300-year sentence for a man convicted of sexually assaulting several children.
The group known as 'Justice For All' is looking to start a statewide campaign to stop the reelection Judge Craig Welling in 2020. He was one of the judges involved in releasing Michael McFadden because his right to a speedy trial was violated.
The group met for the first time Monday night at Grand Junction City Hall.
"It was really shocking for me to think that there are judges out there when faced with putting the rights of a convicted pedophile over the rights of child victims at the end of the day. That's not acceptable to me,” said Heather Benjamin, the group’s co-chair.
They want Welling ousted because of timing.
"He wanted to set a new jury pool and that couldn't be done in that six-month timeframe of a speedy trial,” said group organizer Janet Rowland.
The group also plans on going after Judge Jones who is up for retention in 2024. The third judge is retired, and while 2020 is still a couple years Rowland said justice never sleeps.
"In fact, we may even be behind the ball. We need to raise money and we're looking to raise $1 million plus dollars for this statewide race,” said Rowland.
They believe the rights of a convicted sexual predator were put before the rights of the victims.
"We'll be looking to find representation from all 64 counties to get our message out,” said Rowland.
Calls to Judge Welling and the Colorado Judicial Department were not returned.
Justice for All does have a website with information about the case and details for people who want to volunteer or donate.
Justice for All website: https://www.justiceforallcolorado.org/
The Colorado Attorney General has petitioned the State Supreme Court to review the case: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/ab952a_9ce9a659d960400280c61c3065f37cd4.pdf
The released pervert was rearrested for not registering as a sex offender in connection with a child sexual assault conviction from 1990: http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Colorado-man-sentenced-to--475480273.html
view the rest of the comments →
new4now ago
Is this correct?
The Defense Lawyer and Prosecutor agree on a delay with some questionnaire
since the Defendant didn't come out and agree of the delay
his rights to a speedy trial were infringed and he gets a pass on his charges?
Did not the man hire the Lawyer to be his speaker?
Factfinder2 ago
I found a link that explains it better and changed my post. Thanks for requesting a clarification. Basically, the judge screwed up and the defense took advantage of that.
http://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Formerly-convicted-sex-offender-freed-by-technicality-475680123.html
"The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that McFadden's statutory right to a speedy trial was violated when the presiding judge granted a continuance.
That matters because McFadden has prior sexual offenses.
"Because those facts were coming in, the defense had submitted a jury questionnaire, which addressed his prior conduct on whether or not they could be fair," said Rubinstein.
Rubinstein said the judge didn't read the questionnaire until halfway through the new jury selection, and when he finally did, the judge decided McFadden couldn't get a fair trial. So, he granted a continuance.
"The defense objected and asserted their right to a statutory speedy trial," said Rubinstein.
It's that continuance that led to a Colorado Court of Appeals to overturn his conviction, ruling his right to a speedy trial was violated."
new4now ago
so it was the first judge responsible for him getting off?
Factfinder2 ago
It looks like the first judge screwed up by failing to read a pertinent document until halfway through the jury selection. When he got around to reading it, he basically found that if he had read it before jury selection began, the jury screening questionnaire would have been different. He ruled that McFadden couldn't get a fair trial if it included the jury members who had already been selected using the questionnaire, and so he ordered a continuance, presumably to allow time to restart the jury selection process with a different questionnaire. At the trial, McFadden was found guilty and appealed the decision. At appeal, the defense argued that the continuance had caused an unfair delay and infringed on McFadden's right to a speedy trial. The appeals judges agreed.
There's more to it, and finer details can be read here in the prosecutor's request for a special review: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/ab952a_9ce9a659d960400280c61c3065f37cd4.pdf