Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The timing of this conversation is coincidental in that I
had asked Michael Doherty to come on the show. I
asked him a couple of days ago to talk about
hate crimes laws, and we will absolutely get to that.
It ties in very, very much to the conversation regarding
this wanna be g hottist who firebombed peaceful marchers in
(00:22):
Boulder several weeks ago, and there is news on that
today and you've heard some coverage already from our KAWA
News team. But Michael Doherty is the Boulder County District
Attorney who will be prosecuting that guy. He's also a
candidate for Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Michael, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Good morning Ross. It's very nice to be back with
you today. Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
What do we need to know about today's news.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Well, earlier this morning, our office is filed an amended
complaint against the defendant and the Pearl Street attack, and unfortunately,
in that complaint they are two things that have been added.
One is an account of murder in the first degree
for a victim by the name of Karen Diamond, who
died as a result of the severe injury she suffered
in the attack. She was in our early eighties and
will love it by her family and her friends, and
(01:13):
our office will fight tirelessly for justice for her or
her family and for the community.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Of course, we also added charges for additional victims that.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Have been identified through the good work and hard investigation
underway by law enforcement, both from the FBI and.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
From the Bolder Police departmat additional victims?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Does that mean people who got burned on that day?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
So we now have a total count of twenty nine victims,
thirteen of them suffered physical injury from the burns that
day or from injuries running from the attack.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Got it all right? I'm gonna ask you a very
legalistic kind of kind of question.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So every once in a while, I see.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
A case where somebody has done a bunch of things
wrong and the prosecutor, for prosecutorial reasons, decide to only
charge one thing or two things, or whatever that might be.
How do you how do you decide how many of
these things to charge? For example, if you get him
on murder to the other ones even matter or is
(02:14):
part of it that you want to represent all these
victims so that they know they're being represented in court
by a particular charge.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Well, it's the latter, and just speaking generally, what we
can use. For example, the King super Is mass murder case.
We have ten people gunned down and tragically killed at
the King supers and Table Mason, Boulder, and I think
you'd agree Ross that it would be a mistake for
us to just charge one or two victims in that complaint,
because it wouldn't do justice to the other victims. They
are loved ones and everybody who suffered. As results, we
(02:49):
charge for all ten of the victims. And then to
answer your question, we do look to see what charges
are most appropriate based on the evidence in a case,
and we bring those charges when of course there are
other charges you could bring, and we try to bring
the charge they reflect what we believe has happened and
the victims that have been harmed by the conduct as
a direct result of the actions.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
I asked you this before.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
I'm not sure if I asked you in public, might
have been in that interview we did the Sunday after
the heinous event in Boulder, when I chatted with you
on Pearl Street.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Mall.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
But the federal government is charging him as well, and
I know I asked you this in private, but are
you confident and if so, why are you confident that
the federal government will let you prosecute this first, let
you sentence him in state court, sentence him to state prison,
rather than the Fed's big footing you.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
I appreciate your asking that question, and it speaks to
something that I am very grateful for that we have
in Colorado that other states don't have, which is we
have strong working relationships between federal, state, and local partners
as the all of years of working on communication and coordination,
particularly in response to a tragedy or crisis. So what
that means in practical terms is when something like King
(04:09):
Supers takes place and those ten lives are taken, or
with a Pearl Street attack, that we have the US
Attorney's Office, the Federal of your investigation, local law enforcement,
and my office in the same room and there's mutual
respect and trust and a shared commitment to do in justice.
And based on that, in this case related to Pearl Street,
(04:30):
we're able to determine that the US Attorney's Office would
file hate crimes charges and we would file the attempted murder,
murder and other charges related to the victims in the case.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Okay, that's good, and because you do hear these stories
from time to time and the Feds just jumping in
because they can, and so I.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Sure hope you.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
I hope it work plays out the way you expect,
and I believe, I believe you that it will. And
it's also interesting that that outcome can be influenced by
just the quality of the relationship between the local DA
and the local federal agents.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Well, that's absolutely right, and it's really important to me
because it's exactly what the people in the case but
also in the community deserve from, whether it be federal, state,
or local agencies. The community deserves us operating at our
very best and being able to communicate effectively and work
to the bright outcome in these cases without behind the
scenes infighting and jurisdictional battles. And I appreciate that in
(05:30):
Colorado we've built those relationships. In my office works hard
to maintain those relationships with the federal and state and
local partners that we have.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
I would mention, as I have to do anytime I
talk to the media about.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
A pending case, that in this case, of course, the
charges are melian accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty. I want to make sure
we able to give them a fair trial here in
Boulder County, and for the federal prosecutors to do so
on their hate crimes charges as well.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Right, And you know, I'm not an attorney, I'm not
going to be a jur I'm not a giant. I'm
not a prosecutor, so I don't need to be careful
that way how I talk about it, but you do,
and I appreciate that. I want to paraphrase a listener
question for you, Michael, and this is probably more of
a philosophical question than a legal one. What would have
(06:19):
to happen here to make you feel like there's actual justice?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
And I think what the listeners getting at is.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
This man, because of hatred in his heart and mind
firebombed innocent people walking through a street.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
And killed an eighty two year old woman.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
And somehow, if he just you know, goes to some
state prison for even if it's the rest of his life,
somehow it feels like not enough. You know, we don't
have the death penalty here. How do you think about justice?
Speaker 4 (06:51):
Well, generally speaking, Ross, and I think that's a good question,
and I'll just answer in general terms.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
I've been a prosecutor for twenty eight years, starting.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
As you know, at the Manhattan Districtorney's Office in New
York City, and I was at the AG's office here
in Colorado, and I've been the elected distric attorney here
in Boulder County for the past seven years. And I
think that question is one that we should always ask ourselves,
and people are going to have different answers to me.
It means assessing the evidence to make sure that we're
prosecuting the right person, that we could prove the charges
beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the sentence reflects, in
(07:20):
some way, however appropriate, the harm that the person caused.
And there are gonna be times where that sentence doesn't
necessarily reflect the harm, what doesn't meet what people think
the sentence should be.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
But I strongly believe in the system we have. I
think it's the best justice system in the world.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
But it means that we have to always work hard
to push for the right outcome and to work as
hard as we can to get justice.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah. Look, I'm old school.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
On this, and maybe it's because I'm not Christian right,
with a sort of turn the other cheek thing. And
I'm oversimplifying by a lot, but in the Jewish tradition,
it's more like an eye for an eye. And I
promise you I'm not being so arcastic when I say
the right punishment and I'll give your caveat. Assuming he's
found guilty, the right punishment is to firebomb him. I'm
(08:08):
not trying to be funny. I'm really not. To me,
something like that feels like justice and just And this
isn't a criticism of you, This is our our And
obviously what I'm suggesting is wildly unconstitutional and impossible, and
but again it's a philosophical thing. And every once in
a while you get these crimes that are so heinous
(08:29):
and so arouse such emotion, like the King Supers thing
that you talked about as well, and it's almost like
there's nothing that can happen to these people, even a
death sentence that we don't even have here anymore. That
quite feels like the level of justice that some people
might prefer.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
And Ross, I think what you just shared reflects that
we all have an individual view of this, and I
respect and appreciate you sharing it with me what I
will say from working on cases my entire career, but
including the King Supers case, there are oftentimes at the
end of the criminal justice process that families do feel
some sense of justice has been accomplished through the prosecution
(09:06):
of the criminal case. It will never fill the void,
it will never make them feel like everything's okay, because
they've lost the loved one and that suffering, that trauma
will remain with them every day, I imagine and believe
for the rest of their lives. But they know that
our justice system work the way it's supposed to. Ultimately,
in that case and in other cases, I've seeing victims
feel some sense of closure, and again I want to
(09:27):
stress it doesn't replace the sense of loss that they
continue to suffer, but it was the impact that the
justice system can have when we fight hard for the
right outcome and we're able to secure the right outcome
for loved ones and for the community.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
We are talking with Michael Doherty.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
He is the district attorney in Boulder County who is
prosecuting this guy whose name I won't use, and he's
a candidate for Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
A couple of listener questions for you, what do you
know about this guy's legal representation? Does he have private attorneys?
(10:03):
Does he have public defender? Do you what do you know?
Speaker 4 (10:08):
He's represented by public defenders on the state case, and
from what I understand, public defenders on the federal case
as well.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
The listener wants to know if there is any possibility
of a death sentence in any of the federal cases against.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Him, So that would be a question for the US
Attorney's office. I'm not in a position to answer for
their office, but I would say at the state level,
as ross you indicated earlier, it COLLORAD will repeal the
death penalty in twenty nineteen. The only sentence someone can
receive if they're convicted for murder in the first degree
is life without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
I'm going to get to hate crimes in a second,
which is the reason I asked you to be here today.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
But one more we'll call it a hypothetical.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Imagine that somebody is charged with murder as a state
crime and hate crimes and murder as federal crime, and
gets convicted on everything, gets life without parole in the state,
and is death penalty eligible in the federal case.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
And I'm not saying that's what's happening here. I don't know.
I'm giving a hypothetical or and.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
And and gets a death sentence, Uh, normally normally, how
would that play out in terms of what actually happens
to the person after conviction? Which which which does he
serve the state sentence and and then get executed to
the to the Feds just take him and execute him
after whatever the appeals process is, assuming it gets all
(11:43):
the way through, how would that work? And and then
a more specific question, if something like that played out
in this case, what would you want to happen.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
Well, I'm not going to speculate on it because I
am restricted, as you know, by the ethical rules and
talking about open pending cases. Beyond what I've already shared,
I've never heard of a circumstance hypothetically you've come up with.
I appreciate you raising it, but I've never heard of
that actually happening.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
It may have, but I'm unfamiliar with any case where.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
The federal prosecutors secure the death penalty and state prosecutors
secure a sentence of life without the possibility of the role.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
So rather than speculate on that.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
What I would say is, I'm really grateful that we
do have a strong working relationship with US Attorney's Office.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
We filed the murder and the first.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
Degree charges this morning after consulting with the US Attorney's Office,
the Federal viewer investigation, and the bold use format. So
although I'm on the show this morning and I'm talking
about this case, this is very much joint effort to
secure justice for.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
All the victims, their families, and the entire community.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
On the federal side at least, And I don't think
I've heard this on the state side, correct me. I
don't know what hate crime laws are in Colorado. We've
certainly heard about hate crime charges filed against this guy
by the FEDS. And when I asked you a few
days ago to be on the show, it was for
(13:07):
more of a philosophical conversation than a legal conversation. Based
on today's news, we've gotten into some legal stuff, But
I want to come back to why I asked you
to be here.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
As a Jew, as.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
A member of a group that is often targeted by
people just because I'm Jewish, I nevertheless really struggle with
the idea of hate crimes, because Michael, they seem to
me to be thought to crimes. And if someone beats
me up because I'm Jewish and that's why they did it,
my good instinct is they should be punished for beating
(13:40):
me up, but not necessarily for the reason they beat
me up. And in order for me not to talk
too long, why don't you explain a little bit why
hate crimes laws even exist, and then if you want to,
and I'd appreciate if you would express some of your
own opinion about whether they're a good idea or a
bad idea. Yeah, I feel like I have an open
(14:01):
mind about it, but I'm leaning against them, all right.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I'm going to try to convince you Ross why these
are appropriate for us to have under the law, because
that's my view, and I'm so glad you reached out
to me about this, so thank you. I be thinking
about your question to me that you emailed me.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
I came up with four reasons.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
The first is, we already have under the criminal law
in Colorado and every state, different charges and sentences based
on what someone is thinking at the time. So in
the assault that you just described, if someone's hurt intentionally
or knowingly or recklessly. Those are all different criminal offenses
with different sensing ranges based.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
On what the person was thinking.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
So we already have mensrea as part of our criminal law,
including sentences. The second is, in this country we value
and cherish diversity intolerance, and I strongly believe our laws
should reflect who we are as the people. So having
hate crimes to me reflects the priority replace on diversity
and tolerance.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
In this great country.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
The third is when someone commits a crime, commits a
hate crime.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
So you use yourself as an example.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
When someone commits a hate crime against you based on
your religion, based on your faith, they're not just committing
a crime against you, they're committing a crime against the
entire Jewish community.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
So it also.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Accounts for the ripple effect that a hate crime has,
once committed against an individual, the impact it has on
their wider community. And fourth, and I think this is
something you'd agree with me on, we have other special
classes of victims, if that's the right way to phrase it.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
We have other classes of victims where they are enhanced penalties.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
So for example, a sex crime against the child, a
crime against an older person, so seventy years older in Colorado,
is considered an at risk offense, crimes against the law enforcement,
first responders, judges. Those are all specific offenses that carry
certain penalties with them based on the person who's being victimized.
(15:57):
So for those four reasons, I strongly support hate crime.
I think you raised a big question, and it's a
conversation I've had many times over the years, but I've
always thought these are appropriate for us to have into
the laws. We do justice for victims based on what's
being committed against them and why.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I think those are all legit arguments.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
I think I've heard number three most often right that
an attack on let's say me, because I'm Jewish represents
you called it an attack. I might word it slightly differently.
I might say an implied threat and against every other
Jew that that person or people who think like him
(16:34):
might might come in contact with, and so for deterrence
purposes perhaps, And I think those are very good arguments.
I don't know if you've convinced me, but you've certainly
given me something to something to think about. Last thing,
for you, tell me one thing that you learned while
serving in the Manhattan District Attorney's office that you think
(16:58):
taught you something very valuable that helps you be a
better district attorney here in Colorado.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So good question.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
And I was there for thirteen years, and my final
position there was in charge of the day to day
operations of the entire office of thirteen hundred people, so
working very closely with the elected district attorney there, recognizing
the importance of having staff that understands the mission of
doing justice and operating with integrity and working to secure
the right outcome and frimst cases without fear or favor,
(17:29):
doing our very best. It was which the right outcome.
So that's the leadership experience. And then the trial experience
was incredibly valuable to me. So I handled, for example,
a case involving a guy who, right after nine to
eleven at the World Trade Center, which was about in
the nine blocks from my office, I falsely claimed to
have found survivors while firefighter.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
For trying to conduct rescue operations, and I prosecuted him
for that offense.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
I also prosecuted one of the first hate crimes offenses
in New York after the state passed the law in
two thousand on hate crimes. From those experiences, I've learned
how valuable it is to be able to fight for
justice in the courtroom while also leading a staff to
do the same.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Michael Dougherty, Boulder County DA, and they're lucky to have
him candidate for Colorado Attorney General as well. Thank you
for the wide ranging conversation. Thank you for updating a
KOA audience on the breaking news from today.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
Thank you, boss. I always appreciate talking you, and I
hope you have a great day.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Likewise, thank you, Michael
The timing of this conversation is coincidental in that I
had asked Michael Doherty to come on the show. I
asked him a couple of days ago to talk about
hate crimes laws, and we will absolutely get to that.
It ties in very, very much to the conversation regarding
this wanna be g hottist who firebombed peaceful marchers in
(00:22):
Boulder several weeks ago, and there is news on that
today and you've heard some coverage already from our KAWA
News team. But Michael Doherty is the Boulder County District
Attorney who will be prosecuting that guy. He's also a
candidate for Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Michael, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Good morning Ross. It's very nice to be back with
you today. Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
What do we need to know about today's news.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Well, earlier this morning, our office is filed an amended
complaint against the defendant and the Pearl Street attack, and unfortunately,
in that complaint they are two things that have been added.
One is an account of murder in the first degree
for a victim by the name of Karen Diamond, who
died as a result of the severe injury she suffered
in the attack. She was in our early eighties and
will love it by her family and her friends, and
(01:13):
our office will fight tirelessly for justice for her or
her family and for the community.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Of course, we also added charges for additional victims that.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
Have been identified through the good work and hard investigation
underway by law enforcement, both from the FBI and.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
From the Bolder Police departmat additional victims?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Does that mean people who got burned on that day?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
So we now have a total count of twenty nine victims,
thirteen of them suffered physical injury from the burns that
day or from injuries running from the attack.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Got it all right? I'm gonna ask you a very
legalistic kind of kind of question.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So every once in a while, I see.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
A case where somebody has done a bunch of things
wrong and the prosecutor, for prosecutorial reasons, decide to only
charge one thing or two things, or whatever that might be.
How do you how do you decide how many of
these things to charge? For example, if you get him
on murder to the other ones even matter or is
(02:14):
part of it that you want to represent all these
victims so that they know they're being represented in court
by a particular charge.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Well, it's the latter, and just speaking generally, what we
can use. For example, the King super Is mass murder case.
We have ten people gunned down and tragically killed at
the King supers and Table Mason, Boulder, and I think
you'd agree Ross that it would be a mistake for
us to just charge one or two victims in that complaint,
because it wouldn't do justice to the other victims. They
are loved ones and everybody who suffered. As results, we
(02:49):
charge for all ten of the victims. And then to
answer your question, we do look to see what charges
are most appropriate based on the evidence in a case,
and we bring those charges when of course there are
other charges you could bring, and we try to bring
the charge they reflect what we believe has happened and
the victims that have been harmed by the conduct as
a direct result of the actions.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
I asked you this before.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
I'm not sure if I asked you in public, might
have been in that interview we did the Sunday after
the heinous event in Boulder, when I chatted with you
on Pearl Street.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Mall.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
But the federal government is charging him as well, and
I know I asked you this in private, but are
you confident and if so, why are you confident that
the federal government will let you prosecute this first, let
you sentence him in state court, sentence him to state prison,
rather than the Fed's big footing you.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
I appreciate your asking that question, and it speaks to
something that I am very grateful for that we have
in Colorado that other states don't have, which is we
have strong working relationships between federal, state, and local partners
as the all of years of working on communication and coordination,
particularly in response to a tragedy or crisis. So what
that means in practical terms is when something like King
(04:09):
Supers takes place and those ten lives are taken, or
with a Pearl Street attack, that we have the US
Attorney's Office, the Federal of your investigation, local law enforcement,
and my office in the same room and there's mutual
respect and trust and a shared commitment to do in justice.
And based on that, in this case related to Pearl Street,
(04:30):
we're able to determine that the US Attorney's Office would
file hate crimes charges and we would file the attempted murder,
murder and other charges related to the victims in the case.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Okay, that's good, and because you do hear these stories
from time to time and the Feds just jumping in
because they can, and so I.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Sure hope you.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
I hope it work plays out the way you expect,
and I believe, I believe you that it will. And
it's also interesting that that outcome can be influenced by
just the quality of the relationship between the local DA
and the local federal agents.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Well, that's absolutely right, and it's really important to me
because it's exactly what the people in the case but
also in the community deserve from, whether it be federal, state,
or local agencies. The community deserves us operating at our
very best and being able to communicate effectively and work
to the bright outcome in these cases without behind the
scenes infighting and jurisdictional battles. And I appreciate that in
(05:30):
Colorado we've built those relationships. In my office works hard
to maintain those relationships with the federal and state and
local partners that we have.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
I would mention, as I have to do anytime I
talk to the media about.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
A pending case, that in this case, of course, the
charges are melian accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty. I want to make sure
we able to give them a fair trial here in
Boulder County, and for the federal prosecutors to do so
on their hate crimes charges as well.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Right, And you know, I'm not an attorney, I'm not
going to be a jur I'm not a giant. I'm
not a prosecutor, so I don't need to be careful
that way how I talk about it, but you do,
and I appreciate that. I want to paraphrase a listener
question for you, Michael, and this is probably more of
a philosophical question than a legal one. What would have
(06:19):
to happen here to make you feel like there's actual justice?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
And I think what the listeners getting at is.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
This man, because of hatred in his heart and mind
firebombed innocent people walking through a street.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
And killed an eighty two year old woman.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
And somehow, if he just you know, goes to some
state prison for even if it's the rest of his life,
somehow it feels like not enough. You know, we don't
have the death penalty here. How do you think about justice?
Speaker 4 (06:51):
Well, generally speaking, Ross, and I think that's a good question,
and I'll just answer in general terms.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
I've been a prosecutor for twenty eight years, starting.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
As you know, at the Manhattan Districtorney's Office in New
York City, and I was at the AG's office here
in Colorado, and I've been the elected distric attorney here
in Boulder County for the past seven years. And I
think that question is one that we should always ask ourselves,
and people are going to have different answers to me.
It means assessing the evidence to make sure that we're
prosecuting the right person, that we could prove the charges
beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the sentence reflects, in
(07:20):
some way, however appropriate, the harm that the person caused.
And there are gonna be times where that sentence doesn't
necessarily reflect the harm, what doesn't meet what people think
the sentence should be.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
But I strongly believe in the system we have. I
think it's the best justice system in the world.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
But it means that we have to always work hard
to push for the right outcome and to work as
hard as we can to get justice.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah. Look, I'm old school.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
On this, and maybe it's because I'm not Christian right,
with a sort of turn the other cheek thing. And
I'm oversimplifying by a lot, but in the Jewish tradition,
it's more like an eye for an eye. And I
promise you I'm not being so arcastic when I say
the right punishment and I'll give your caveat. Assuming he's
found guilty, the right punishment is to firebomb him. I'm
(08:08):
not trying to be funny. I'm really not. To me,
something like that feels like justice and just And this
isn't a criticism of you, This is our our And
obviously what I'm suggesting is wildly unconstitutional and impossible, and
but again it's a philosophical thing. And every once in
a while you get these crimes that are so heinous
(08:29):
and so arouse such emotion, like the King Supers thing
that you talked about as well, and it's almost like
there's nothing that can happen to these people, even a
death sentence that we don't even have here anymore. That
quite feels like the level of justice that some people
might prefer.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
And Ross, I think what you just shared reflects that
we all have an individual view of this, and I
respect and appreciate you sharing it with me what I
will say from working on cases my entire career, but
including the King Supers case, there are oftentimes at the
end of the criminal justice process that families do feel
some sense of justice has been accomplished through the prosecution
(09:06):
of the criminal case. It will never fill the void,
it will never make them feel like everything's okay, because
they've lost the loved one and that suffering, that trauma
will remain with them every day, I imagine and believe
for the rest of their lives. But they know that
our justice system work the way it's supposed to. Ultimately,
in that case and in other cases, I've seeing victims
feel some sense of closure, and again I want to
(09:27):
stress it doesn't replace the sense of loss that they
continue to suffer, but it was the impact that the
justice system can have when we fight hard for the
right outcome and we're able to secure the right outcome
for loved ones and for the community.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
We are talking with Michael Doherty.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
He is the district attorney in Boulder County who is
prosecuting this guy whose name I won't use, and he's
a candidate for Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
A couple of listener questions for you, what do you
know about this guy's legal representation? Does he have private attorneys?
(10:03):
Does he have public defender? Do you what do you know?
Speaker 4 (10:08):
He's represented by public defenders on the state case, and
from what I understand, public defenders on the federal case
as well.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
The listener wants to know if there is any possibility
of a death sentence in any of the federal cases against.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Him, So that would be a question for the US
Attorney's office. I'm not in a position to answer for
their office, but I would say at the state level,
as ross you indicated earlier, it COLLORAD will repeal the
death penalty in twenty nineteen. The only sentence someone can
receive if they're convicted for murder in the first degree
is life without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
I'm going to get to hate crimes in a second,
which is the reason I asked you to be here today.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
But one more we'll call it a hypothetical.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Imagine that somebody is charged with murder as a state
crime and hate crimes and murder as federal crime, and
gets convicted on everything, gets life without parole in the state,
and is death penalty eligible in the federal case.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
And I'm not saying that's what's happening here. I don't know.
I'm giving a hypothetical or and.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
And and gets a death sentence, Uh, normally normally, how
would that play out in terms of what actually happens
to the person after conviction? Which which which does he
serve the state sentence and and then get executed to
the to the Feds just take him and execute him
after whatever the appeals process is, assuming it gets all
(11:43):
the way through, how would that work? And and then
a more specific question, if something like that played out
in this case, what would you want to happen.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
Well, I'm not going to speculate on it because I
am restricted, as you know, by the ethical rules and
talking about open pending cases. Beyond what I've already shared,
I've never heard of a circumstance hypothetically you've come up with.
I appreciate you raising it, but I've never heard of
that actually happening.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
It may have, but I'm unfamiliar with any case where.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
The federal prosecutors secure the death penalty and state prosecutors
secure a sentence of life without the possibility of the role.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
So rather than speculate on that.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
What I would say is, I'm really grateful that we
do have a strong working relationship with US Attorney's Office.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
We filed the murder and the first.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
Degree charges this morning after consulting with the US Attorney's Office,
the Federal viewer investigation, and the bold use format. So
although I'm on the show this morning and I'm talking
about this case, this is very much joint effort to
secure justice for.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
All the victims, their families, and the entire community.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
On the federal side at least, And I don't think
I've heard this on the state side, correct me. I
don't know what hate crime laws are in Colorado. We've
certainly heard about hate crime charges filed against this guy
by the FEDS. And when I asked you a few
days ago to be on the show, it was for
(13:07):
more of a philosophical conversation than a legal conversation. Based
on today's news, we've gotten into some legal stuff, But
I want to come back to why I asked you
to be here.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
As a Jew, as.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
A member of a group that is often targeted by
people just because I'm Jewish, I nevertheless really struggle with
the idea of hate crimes, because Michael, they seem to
me to be thought to crimes. And if someone beats
me up because I'm Jewish and that's why they did it,
my good instinct is they should be punished for beating
(13:40):
me up, but not necessarily for the reason they beat
me up. And in order for me not to talk
too long, why don't you explain a little bit why
hate crimes laws even exist, and then if you want to,
and I'd appreciate if you would express some of your
own opinion about whether they're a good idea or a
bad idea. Yeah, I feel like I have an open
(14:01):
mind about it, but I'm leaning against them, all right.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I'm going to try to convince you Ross why these
are appropriate for us to have under the law, because
that's my view, and I'm so glad you reached out
to me about this, so thank you. I be thinking
about your question to me that you emailed me.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
I came up with four reasons.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
The first is, we already have under the criminal law
in Colorado and every state, different charges and sentences based
on what someone is thinking at the time. So in
the assault that you just described, if someone's hurt intentionally
or knowingly or recklessly. Those are all different criminal offenses
with different sensing ranges based.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
On what the person was thinking.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
So we already have mensrea as part of our criminal law,
including sentences. The second is, in this country we value
and cherish diversity intolerance, and I strongly believe our laws
should reflect who we are as the people. So having
hate crimes to me reflects the priority replace on diversity
and tolerance.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
In this great country.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
The third is when someone commits a crime, commits a
hate crime.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
So you use yourself as an example.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
When someone commits a hate crime against you based on
your religion, based on your faith, they're not just committing
a crime against you, they're committing a crime against the
entire Jewish community.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
So it also.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Accounts for the ripple effect that a hate crime has,
once committed against an individual, the impact it has on
their wider community. And fourth, and I think this is
something you'd agree with me on, we have other special
classes of victims, if that's the right way to phrase it.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
We have other classes of victims where they are enhanced penalties.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
So for example, a sex crime against the child, a
crime against an older person, so seventy years older in Colorado,
is considered an at risk offense, crimes against the law enforcement,
first responders, judges. Those are all specific offenses that carry
certain penalties with them based on the person who's being victimized.
(15:57):
So for those four reasons, I strongly support hate crime.
I think you raised a big question, and it's a
conversation I've had many times over the years, but I've
always thought these are appropriate for us to have into
the laws. We do justice for victims based on what's
being committed against them and why.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I think those are all legit arguments.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
I think I've heard number three most often right that
an attack on let's say me, because I'm Jewish represents
you called it an attack. I might word it slightly differently.
I might say an implied threat and against every other
Jew that that person or people who think like him
(16:34):
might might come in contact with, and so for deterrence
purposes perhaps, And I think those are very good arguments.
I don't know if you've convinced me, but you've certainly
given me something to something to think about. Last thing,
for you, tell me one thing that you learned while
serving in the Manhattan District Attorney's office that you think
(16:58):
taught you something very valuable that helps you be a
better district attorney here in Colorado.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So good question.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
And I was there for thirteen years, and my final
position there was in charge of the day to day
operations of the entire office of thirteen hundred people, so
working very closely with the elected district attorney there, recognizing
the importance of having staff that understands the mission of
doing justice and operating with integrity and working to secure
the right outcome and frimst cases without fear or favor,
(17:29):
doing our very best. It was which the right outcome.
So that's the leadership experience. And then the trial experience
was incredibly valuable to me. So I handled, for example,
a case involving a guy who, right after nine to
eleven at the World Trade Center, which was about in
the nine blocks from my office, I falsely claimed to
have found survivors while firefighter.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
For trying to conduct rescue operations, and I prosecuted him
for that offense.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
I also prosecuted one of the first hate crimes offenses
in New York after the state passed the law in
two thousand on hate crimes. From those experiences, I've learned
how valuable it is to be able to fight for
justice in the courtroom while also leading a staff to
do the same.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Michael Dougherty, Boulder County DA, and they're lucky to have
him candidate for Colorado Attorney General as well. Thank you
for the wide ranging conversation. Thank you for updating a
KOA audience on the breaking news from today.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
Thank you, boss. I always appreciate talking you, and I
hope you have a great day.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Likewise, thank you, Michael
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.