Colorado D.A. Invokes Novel 'Prostitots' Legal Theory to Explain Away Unfavorable DNA Test Results

Denver Post columnist Susan Greene details what looks to be a railroading in progress.

Residents were alarmed last summer by a rash of thefts, trespasses and burglaries in Stonegate, a neighborhood in Douglas County.

Fear turned to panic in July after an intruder reportedly climbed into a second- story window and groped an 8-year-old girl in her bed.

A sicko was on the loose and pressure was on to catch him.

Soon enough, they found their man. Police arrested Tyler Sanchez, a 19-year-old who is both hearing impaired and mentally disabled. After 17 hours of questioning over a 38-hour period, Sanchez confessed, though according to Greene, his confession consisted of no more than the details of the crime the police revealed to him during interrogation. In announcing their success, prosecutors noted Sanchez's "pattern of escalating behavior," by which they meant he had been arrested as a juvenile for graffiti, then violated his probation by consuming alcohol. If only they had locked up this monster sooner.

Unfortunately, the state's case then took a hit when DNA testing on evidence culled from the 8-year-old's underwear pointed to an unknown male, but excluded Sanchez as that male. No matter. District Attorney Carol Chambers insists she still has the right guy. How can she be so sure? Well, because kids can be such sluts these days.

"With the low-cut jeans that girls wear, she could have picked up anyone's DNA off any surface her panties touched while they may have been riding up above her pants. I hate those low-cut pants," Chambers said...

"Depending on how long she had been wearing those panties and where, they could have rubbed up against the back of her chair at school, a restaurant, the couch at home that someone else had been sitting on, a bus seat, someone's toilet seat if she did not pull them down far enough — there are many ways to get unknown DNA on clothing. Another kid could have snapped the elastic on her underwear — kids do that sort of thing."

Don't be too hard on Chambers, though. She probably knows that in Colorado, sending potentially innocent people to prison is how prosecutors become judges.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    the link to the story is wrong. It doesn't send you to the Denver Post.

  • ||

    ""With the low-cut jeans that girls wear, she could have picked up anyone's DNA off any surface her panties touched while they may have been riding up above her pants. I hate those low-cut pants,""

    They would never agree with that if came out the defense's mouth.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    I was wondering why she was wearing low cut leans to bed.

  • Homer Simpson||

    "With the low-cut jeans that girls wear, she could have picked up anyone's DNA off any surface her panties touched while they may have been riding up above her pants."

    That could be anybody's pig crap silo!

  • Xeones||

    The DA's theory, if i may rape the concept of scientific method by referring to it as such, is one of the stupidest statements i have ever read. Die in a fire, Carol Chambers.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    I am in total agreement. Her theory is that if any DNA was found then the guy she has in jail must have touched the girl.

    No mention of the suspect's DNA anywhere is irrleivvent.

  • ||

    Maybe I am mistaken but you don't get DNA from someone's bare skin. When you send in those home DNA tests, you have to swab your mouth, not your hand. This is just embarrassing.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Then where did the other male DNA come from?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Didn't you read the post? The male DNA is from random sources due to low riding jeans, proving the suspect guilty.

    None of the suspect's DNA is required.

  • Mo||

    Skin cells have DNA. As does hair. Hands often have hair on them. Mouth swabs are used because they're quick, easy and non-invasive. Also, they're less likely to be contaminated by other people's DNA. Every cell that's not a red blood cell has DNA.

  • ||

    Which obviously means Sanchez is guilty! Good call.

  • VikingMoose||

    for the meletary loier: translation of Mo to dumbass

    "I SUGGEST YOU READ UP ON THIS MORE BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF ANY FURTHER"

    [ducks. runs off]

  • ||

    Meanwhile, the miscreant that groped that little girl is laughing his ass off. Nobody's looking for him anymore.

  • ||

    Aside from the fact that they have the wrong guy, you'd think this would have the local Concerned Parents up in arms.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    At this point the parents seem unresponsive.

  • Old Mexican||

    "Depending on how long she had been wearing those panties and where, they could have rubbed up against the back of her chair at school, a restaurant, the couch at home that someone else had been sitting on, a bus seat, someone's toilet seat if she did not pull them down far enough — there are many ways to get unknown DNA on clothing. Another kid could have snapped the elastic on her underwear — kids do that sort of thing."

    If there is no physical evidence found that places him in the scene, no amount of ad hoc reasoning can make the argument against him more cogent. All of the DA's explantions as to why the DNA was of another man remain mere conjectures that have no bearing on Mr. Sanchez's culpability or lack thereof.

  • mark||

    You're right, these guys are as bad as conspiracy theorists.

  • ||

    Worse, most conspiracy theorists don't have the power to dupe people into sending you to jail.

  • ||

    Don't be so sure. The average LRC and WND reader wants Norm Mineta in jail for his involvement in 9/11

  • ||

    I'm sure if the test had come back positive for Sanchez's DNA, the District Attorney would have been equally unsure about whether sexual activity had occurred or not.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    LOL FTW

  • Joe M||

    She probably knows that in Colorado any state in the U.S., sending potentially innocent people to prison is how prosecutors become judges.

    FIFY

  • Zeb||

    Nah, its mostly where judges are elected.

  • Great Moments in Government||

    Next time you crack open a fortune cookie, check the flip side. The federal government may have a message for you.

    Tsue Chong Co., a fortune-cookie factory in Seattle's Chinatown International District, is inserting five different census messages into 2 million cookies being shipped to restaurants and groceries across Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

    Like the usual predictions of wealth, fame and long life you'll find on one side, the census missives on the opposite side are a bit ... well ... banal.

    "Put down your chopsticks and get involved in Census 2010," reads one message. "Real Fortune is being heard," reads another.

    It's all part of a broader effort by the Census Bureau to spread the word about the upcoming population count on April 1. The nation's 112 million households will begin receiving forms in the mail beginning in late March.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ne18m.html

  • BakedPenguin||

    "You will find happiness with a new love after filing the proper forms"

  • Joe M||

    Best chuckle of the day.

  • Old Mexican||

    +100

    Made me laugh.

  • oncogenesis||

    ... in bed.

  • Mike Nifong||

    She's right, you bitches. Good DAs can just feel it when they got the right guy...

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Excellent use of a joke handle.

  • ||

    Only 17 hours, huh. Too bad they didn't talk about the details of the JFK assassination. We might finally be able to put that one to rest.

  • bubba||

    If it's so easy to get DNA on a girl's panties, why didn't Sanchez leave any?

  • ||

    Believe me man, it's not as easy as these charlatans would have you believe. I'm still working on it.

  • skr||

    Wow, does she not see that she has just made an argument invalidating the use of any DNA ever? That would be a fantastic precedent for a DA to set, "I know my client's DNA is all over her panties but she could have picked that up anywhere. Don't you remember you made the same argument last week when you convicted the retarded kid.?"

  • Michael Ejercito||


    Wow, does she not see that she has just made an argument invalidating the use of any DNA ever?


    Only if the jury buys the argument.

    This is clearly beyond reasonable belief.

  • skr||

    It just astonishes me that the DA would say something so obviously stupid and without apparent understanding of what it is she is actually arguing.

    Before you ask, "Yes I have been paying attention to Balko and yet I still get surprised."

  • Joe M||

    Just to be clear, not only is she dismissing the prescence of other DNA, she's saying it doesn't matter that the defendant's DNA is nowhere to be found! Obviously, he molested the girl, who promptly showered, washed her clothes, put them back on, and let a stranger touch her down there. Duh!

  • Spoonman||

    Shouldn't she prove that this eight-year-old wears low-cut pants?

    Also, Jesus Fucking Christ.

  • Jesus Christ||

    Leave me outta this.

  • ||

    I have an eight-year-old, if this moron were talking about my daughter this way, he might have more to worry about than falsely sending a tard to prison. I hang out with a lot of white trash people with kids (Me and my eight year old are in a bowling league), and I am here to tell you that without a doubt the girls of this age dress pretty decently. How dare this f-ing tard blame victim for not having the "correct" DNA evidence. How dare this f-tard imply the kid is anything but a nice little girl whose innocence was robbed. I mean this is not a 20 year-old stripper who fabricated her story, this is an eight year old who was molested in her bed, in her home. This whole case is simply beyond the pale.

    How did this reject of a human being ever pass the bar? How does this reject get through law school? I mean really how does somebody this f-ing dumb get up in the morning tie his shoelaces and take a pee?

    I am so disgusted by this, it is not even funny.

    Regards

    Joe Dokes

  • ||

    How did this reject of a human being ever pass the bar?

    The bar exam has no way to test for an applicant's common sense, only their ability to memorize and regurgitate. A computer could pass the bar.

    -jcr

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And juries will believe that this would be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone believe it at all ?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    You know how it's hard for normal people to admit when we're wrong? For a prosecutor to admit he or she is wrong must be tantamount to eating one's own head.

  • ||

    Of course, I can understand the reluctance to do so, considering where she'd have to pull it out of first.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Wouldn't it be nice if this were some Islamofascist shithole, and the DA could simply have the girl flogged for bringing shame on her family, what with her low-cut Dora the Explorer nightie and slutty Disney Princess sheet set?

  • joeindenver||

    I actually live in said community (Stonegate) and have found Carol Camber's conduct to be, in a word, frightful. I don't recall seeing much about this lately locally, so seeing the story here surprised me. But to read the quote does not surprise me, she's quite smitten with herself.

  • ||

    17 hours of questioning, without counsel present, I'm guessing?

    The cops and the prosecutor are doing two things wrong here: fucking over an innocent defendant, and failing to find the real perp.

    -jcr

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement