Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I am very pleased to be joined once again on
the show by Boulder County District Attorney Michael Doherty, who
is also a candidate for Colorado Attorney General. And I
would just like to note that before we went on
the air, Michael told me that he is I think
twice run the Leadville one hundred, which I cannot imagine.
How do you do that? How exactly do you run
(00:23):
one hundred miles? It seems impossible and insane.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Well, good morning, Ross, It's great to be back on
with you.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
And I will say it just speaks to my stamina
and the great team and family I have around me,
and I love running in Colorad's outdoors and I'll just
keep doing it.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Do you what altitude do you go to to train
for that? Or do you just run around Boulder at
Boulder's altitude which is like half of Leadville's altitude.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Well, thankfully living in Boulder, fortunately the opportunity to run
all through the hills.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
But I'll run wherever I am.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
So in the last week I've run in Breckenridge, Alamosa,
and Denver. So wherever I'm going to be, I'm going
to keep running and That's how I build up the
stamina what I need to do.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Did you ever run on Magnolia Road up towards Nederland.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Did you ever run there?
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yes? Yeah, It's an amazing place to run in, just
a beautiful place.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
That was the first place I bought a house in
Colorado was on Magnolia Road up there.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Pretty pretty amazing.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Although I'm kind of glad that I don't have to
deal with, you know, seven months of winter.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Now, all right. I saw an interesting story the other day.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
So the context was was fascinating because I was having
a conversation with a guy named Charles Lane, longtime political
pundit and former Supreme Court reporter for I think ABC News,
and we were talking about the death penalty, and I
realized we don't have that here in Colorado anymore. But
(01:46):
my longtime view on the death penalty, or relatively long
time view, was that I have come to oppose the
death penalty.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
If you made me say have it or.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Don't have it, and those are your only choices, i'd
say don't have it. And you're not gonna like this part, Michael,
but I'm gonna say it anyway. Actually, you probably agree
with me a little bit. I don't fully trust the
criminal justice system to not convict an innocent man. And
I've seen too many stories of people cheating, whether it's prosecutors, cops,
car owners, anybody to try to get a conviction, and
(02:15):
I'm not willing to have even one innocent person executed. Actually,
I'm guessing you might agree with me on that. You
can answer that in a second. Anyway, I had that
conversation with this guy on the air, and then literally
two or three hours later, I saw this story about
a convicted criminal named Michael Clark and Boulder and the
decision that you have to make that story came out
(02:38):
the same day I had this conversation.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
So I would like, first.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Of all, you can say anything you want to, just
briefly about the death penalty, and then I want to
talk about the Michael Clark case.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Sure well, I actually agree with you one hundred percent. Ross.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
In fact, after serving as a prosecutor in the Manhattan
DIA's Office, New York City, I moved to Colorado the
work for the Attorney General's office because the Attorney General
at the time, John Southers, had started a to identify
wonthful convictions in the State of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
The system doesn't.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Always get it right to your point, even when there's
no misconduct. So, for example, I led a team that
worked on and then ultimately brought about.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
The exoneration of Robert Dewey.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Mister Dewey had served eighteen years in state prison before
I and the other members of the team started working
on his case for a murder that he did not
commit in grand junction, and our work helped bring about
the successful identification, arrest, and conviction of the actual killer,
as well as the exoneration of mister Dewey. And if
he had been, for example, subjected to the death penalty,
he goes right to your point. So in a system
(03:34):
that doesn't always get it right, even when there's no
misconduct by police or prosecutors or jurors, we need to
make sure that we have everything in place to allow
people to still appeal any conviction.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
That's why I started the first conviction Integrity unit in.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
The state of Colorado when I became District Attorney for
Boulder County in twenty eighteen, because I think being a
prosecutor means doing justice, even on cases that seemed to
have been closed.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
So when Michael Clark was originally convicted, we still did
have the death penalty in this state, but he was
not given a capital sentence.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So tell us, now, what is the decision that you
need to make or you have just made about Michael Clark,
And why did that decision need to be made?
Speaker 4 (04:18):
What's happened here?
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Well, Having served on the cold case review team for
Colorado and having handled cold case homicides throughout my career,
I can tell you that anytime there's a murder, particularly
a cold case homicide, the victim obviously goes without justice,
the family goes without answers, and the community goes without
any kind of closure. So I've always been very passionate
about working hard to solve cold case homicides and prosecuting
(04:42):
the killer when we can.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
That requires a lot of experience. Experience matters when you.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Go into court on serious cases, so cold case homicides
we treat us a priority in my office. The analysis
has to include do we have enough evidence to have
a reasonable likelihood of conviction after trial? The ethical standards,
so can we prove the case beyond reasonable doubt? And
in the Michael Clark case, we conducted an exhaustive review
to examine all the evidence, and I would highlight for
(05:09):
you and your listener's ross that the victim in this case,
Marty Grisham, he had done nothing wrong. He was completely innocent.
This murder was, as many are, wholly unjustified. Marty Grisham
answered the door of his house and he was shot
four times, point blank and killed that day in nineteen
ninety four. Michael Clark was identified as a suspect almost
(05:30):
immediately by law enforcement. Ultimately he was convicted, then appealed
this conviction. I made the decision to vacate the conviction
because that was the right thing to do.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
I also made the decision to.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Send the DNA evidence to a private lab because of
the significant issues that the car up your investigation, the
state's lab has had, and you and I have talked
about those in the past.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Yeah, so please elaborate that on that though, for people
who missed it. So, why was there a question? What
happened that made you want to vacate the conviction the.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Interest of justice? And then we'll get to and you
just touched on it.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
More than touching on it, you kind of answered already
why you want to go ahead and try them again?
But what happened that required, in the interest of justice,
vacating the original sentence.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
There were three significant issues.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
The first was alleged GERM misconduct during the course of
the trial. After the trial came out that one of
the jurors may have or actually did visit the crime scene,
which of course violates the rules of the court. Second,
the defendant had put forward an ineffective assistance a council
alleging that his defense journeys did a shoddy job the
first time around. And then the third one that developed
(06:35):
was with regards to the misconduct of Missy Woods, the
DNA and now analyst excuse me, who now stands indicted
for her misconduct at the state's lab and her work
has impacted hundreds of cases throughout the state of Colorado,
and Michael Clark's team brought a claim that her work
on this case was questionable, if not corrupted. So for
(06:56):
that reason and based on the other two reasons of
alleged misconduct and ineffective assistance, Council I moved to vacate
the conviction. And then I asked that the DNA evidence
be tested at a private lab to ensure the integrity
of the evidence.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
How old are those first two claimed problems with the trial,
the effective the ineffective council, and the other thing you mentioned.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
How old are those objections.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Michael Clark was convicted of first degree murder based on
all the evidence against him in twenty twelve, and then
those claims were brought in the years that followed.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Like the year it immediately followed.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Like what I'm trying to get at is like, did
these things all sort of show up recently or were
the first two there for quite some time, not enough
to make you think this needs to be vacated, and
then the Missy Woods thing kind of.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Pushed it over, pushed it off the rail.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Now, all three were brought out more recently than that,
and we're being litigated at the time the DNA evidence
became an issue with Missy Woods.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
We're talking with Michael Dougherty, the Boulder County District Attorney
and candidate for Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
How in your so you've decided to retry him rather
than just say you believe that you can convict him again.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
That's the analysis and the conclusion we reached.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yes, will there be any admissible DNA evidence this time.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Around, that will certainly be litigated before the trial, and
we asked for a trial date of October of this year.
The defense asked for a trial date late in twenty
twenty six. Ultimately the court set it for May of
twenty six for trial.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Is Michael Clark free in the community right now?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
I had made the decision to restore him to his
bond status that he had during the first trial, and
I did that because he had given every indication that
he was going to appear for court through that process
and then in the process, since.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Should I infer from that that you do not believe
Michael Clark poses a current danger to the community.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
That is correct, and I would highlight for you that
the murder was committed in nineteen ninety four. He was
not prosecuted the first time around until twenty twelve, and
during that time, to my knowledge, did not have any
criminal offenses.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And since then that is true as well.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is there a claimed or suspected motive.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
In the murder?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Yes, and I, as you know, under the ethical rules,
I can't get into too much of the evidence because
it's but there are reasons why the police identified him
as a suspect literally in the first day or two
after the murder of Marty Grisham.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
All right, let me try to ask this in a
way that you can answer.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
I realized it's an ongoing case, in a murder case,
so you are going to be kind of limited. Can
you recount for me any evidence or testimony given in
the first trial in public that went to motive.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
So what I would say is, of course, the defendant's
innocent unlesson until proven guilty, and the charges and merely
allegations until.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Proven in court.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
At the first trial where he was found guilty by
the jury a murder in the first degree, there was
evidence presented of Marty Grisham's checks being stolen from his
home and an individual writing those checks out to his
own name, and that check fraud, those stolen checks being
discovered the same day as the murder being committed.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
That was all evidence that jury heard.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Last question for.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
You on this, when it came to the decision whether
to retry, after you got all the information that you
requested from your team and from your own research, did
you find the decision to go ahead and retry to
be a fairly easy decision once you had the information
in front of you of what you would bring to
(10:35):
the trial or was it a close call.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
What I would say is Marty Grisham was gunned down
in cold blood, so obviously we want to make sure
that we reached the right results for him and his
family in the community. But also I recognize the responsibility
I owe to the accused in any case to make
these decisions really thoughtfully and after a careful analysis of
all the evidence against the defendant, and that analysis took
(10:59):
quite some time. I wanted to make sure that we
were on the right track in any case impacted by
missy Wood's misconduct. It requires us to look at all
the other evidence in a case. So, for example, in
a case like this, at the time this murder was
first when the murder was committed in ninety four, DNA
was just beginning to be used in criminal cases in
Colorado and across the United States. So murder cases before
(11:21):
then have been solved without DNA, and of course murder
cases since then sometimes don't involve DNA, So it involves
a careful analysis.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Of all the evidence.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Motive means any statements of defendant makes after murder's been committed,
they may indicate he's in fact responsible for the murder.
So going generally speaking, going through all that evidence in
each one of the cases where missy Wood's conduct may
have impacted the integrity of the conviction, something that we've
approached really thoughtfully and put a ton of work into
making sure we're on the right track in each one
(11:51):
of those cases.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Michael Dougherty is Boulder County District Attorney. He is candidate
for Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
You know, for he hasn't.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Michael doesn't hasn't asked me to talk about any politics
at all, But for for my own perspective, he's the
most credible candidate in this in this race at this time.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
And even though Michael Michael is.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
A Democrat and I don't normally lean that way, I
have tremendous respect for the way he does his job
and uh and I think he's probably the right guy
for AG.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
The website if you want to learn more about that.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
That campaign is Michael for AG dot com, which is
separate from what he's doing right now, and his day
to day job is DA for Boulder County and he's
doing it very well. Thank you so much for your
for your time. Michael always appreciate having you here.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Ross, thanks for having me on, and I hope you
and your listeners have a great day.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
YouTube YouTube go run one hundred miles at eleven thousand
feet altitude and talk to you later
I am very pleased to be joined once again on
the show by Boulder County District Attorney Michael Doherty, who
is also a candidate for Colorado Attorney General. And I
would just like to note that before we went on
the air, Michael told me that he is I think
twice run the Leadville one hundred, which I cannot imagine.
How do you do that? How exactly do you run
(00:23):
one hundred miles? It seems impossible and insane.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Well, good morning, Ross, It's great to be back on
with you.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
And I will say it just speaks to my stamina
and the great team and family I have around me,
and I love running in Colorad's outdoors and I'll just
keep doing it.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Do you what altitude do you go to to train
for that? Or do you just run around Boulder at
Boulder's altitude which is like half of Leadville's altitude.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Well, thankfully living in Boulder, fortunately the opportunity to run
all through the hills.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
But I'll run wherever I am.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
So in the last week I've run in Breckenridge, Alamosa,
and Denver. So wherever I'm going to be, I'm going
to keep running and That's how I build up the
stamina what I need to do.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Did you ever run on Magnolia Road up towards Nederland.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Did you ever run there?
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yes? Yeah, It's an amazing place to run in, just
a beautiful place.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
That was the first place I bought a house in
Colorado was on Magnolia Road up there.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Pretty pretty amazing.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Although I'm kind of glad that I don't have to
deal with, you know, seven months of winter.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Now, all right. I saw an interesting story the other day.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
So the context was was fascinating because I was having
a conversation with a guy named Charles Lane, longtime political
pundit and former Supreme Court reporter for I think ABC News,
and we were talking about the death penalty, and I
realized we don't have that here in Colorado anymore. But
(01:46):
my longtime view on the death penalty, or relatively long
time view, was that I have come to oppose the
death penalty.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
If you made me say have it or.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Don't have it, and those are your only choices, i'd
say don't have it. And you're not gonna like this part, Michael,
but I'm gonna say it anyway. Actually, you probably agree
with me a little bit. I don't fully trust the
criminal justice system to not convict an innocent man. And
I've seen too many stories of people cheating, whether it's prosecutors, cops,
car owners, anybody to try to get a conviction, and
(02:15):
I'm not willing to have even one innocent person executed. Actually,
I'm guessing you might agree with me on that. You
can answer that in a second. Anyway, I had that
conversation with this guy on the air, and then literally
two or three hours later, I saw this story about
a convicted criminal named Michael Clark and Boulder and the
decision that you have to make that story came out
(02:38):
the same day I had this conversation.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
So I would like, first.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Of all, you can say anything you want to, just
briefly about the death penalty, and then I want to
talk about the Michael Clark case.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Sure well, I actually agree with you one hundred percent. Ross.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
In fact, after serving as a prosecutor in the Manhattan
DIA's Office, New York City, I moved to Colorado the
work for the Attorney General's office because the Attorney General
at the time, John Southers, had started a to identify
wonthful convictions in the State of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
The system doesn't.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Always get it right to your point, even when there's
no misconduct. So, for example, I led a team that
worked on and then ultimately brought about.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
The exoneration of Robert Dewey.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Mister Dewey had served eighteen years in state prison before
I and the other members of the team started working
on his case for a murder that he did not
commit in grand junction, and our work helped bring about
the successful identification, arrest, and conviction of the actual killer,
as well as the exoneration of mister Dewey. And if
he had been, for example, subjected to the death penalty,
he goes right to your point. So in a system
(03:34):
that doesn't always get it right, even when there's no
misconduct by police or prosecutors or jurors, we need to
make sure that we have everything in place to allow
people to still appeal any conviction.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
That's why I started the first conviction Integrity unit in.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
The state of Colorado when I became District Attorney for
Boulder County in twenty eighteen, because I think being a
prosecutor means doing justice, even on cases that seemed to
have been closed.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
So when Michael Clark was originally convicted, we still did
have the death penalty in this state, but he was
not given a capital sentence.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So tell us, now, what is the decision that you
need to make or you have just made about Michael Clark,
And why did that decision need to be made?
Speaker 4 (04:18):
What's happened here?
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Well, Having served on the cold case review team for
Colorado and having handled cold case homicides throughout my career,
I can tell you that anytime there's a murder, particularly
a cold case homicide, the victim obviously goes without justice,
the family goes without answers, and the community goes without
any kind of closure. So I've always been very passionate
about working hard to solve cold case homicides and prosecuting
(04:42):
the killer when we can.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
That requires a lot of experience. Experience matters when you.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Go into court on serious cases, so cold case homicides
we treat us a priority in my office. The analysis
has to include do we have enough evidence to have
a reasonable likelihood of conviction after trial? The ethical standards,
so can we prove the case beyond reasonable doubt? And
in the Michael Clark case, we conducted an exhaustive review
to examine all the evidence, and I would highlight for
(05:09):
you and your listener's ross that the victim in this case,
Marty Grisham, he had done nothing wrong. He was completely innocent.
This murder was, as many are, wholly unjustified. Marty Grisham
answered the door of his house and he was shot
four times, point blank and killed that day in nineteen
ninety four. Michael Clark was identified as a suspect almost
(05:30):
immediately by law enforcement. Ultimately he was convicted, then appealed
this conviction. I made the decision to vacate the conviction
because that was the right thing to do.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
I also made the decision to.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Send the DNA evidence to a private lab because of
the significant issues that the car up your investigation, the
state's lab has had, and you and I have talked
about those in the past.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Yeah, so please elaborate that on that though, for people
who missed it. So, why was there a question? What
happened that made you want to vacate the conviction the.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Interest of justice? And then we'll get to and you
just touched on it.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
More than touching on it, you kind of answered already
why you want to go ahead and try them again?
But what happened that required, in the interest of justice,
vacating the original sentence.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
There were three significant issues.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
The first was alleged GERM misconduct during the course of
the trial. After the trial came out that one of
the jurors may have or actually did visit the crime scene,
which of course violates the rules of the court. Second,
the defendant had put forward an ineffective assistance a council
alleging that his defense journeys did a shoddy job the
first time around. And then the third one that developed
(06:35):
was with regards to the misconduct of Missy Woods, the
DNA and now analyst excuse me, who now stands indicted
for her misconduct at the state's lab and her work
has impacted hundreds of cases throughout the state of Colorado,
and Michael Clark's team brought a claim that her work
on this case was questionable, if not corrupted. So for
(06:56):
that reason and based on the other two reasons of
alleged misconduct and ineffective assistance, Council I moved to vacate
the conviction. And then I asked that the DNA evidence
be tested at a private lab to ensure the integrity
of the evidence.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
How old are those first two claimed problems with the trial,
the effective the ineffective council, and the other thing you mentioned.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
How old are those objections.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Michael Clark was convicted of first degree murder based on
all the evidence against him in twenty twelve, and then
those claims were brought in the years that followed.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Like the year it immediately followed.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Like what I'm trying to get at is like, did
these things all sort of show up recently or were
the first two there for quite some time, not enough
to make you think this needs to be vacated, and
then the Missy Woods thing kind of.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Pushed it over, pushed it off the rail.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Now, all three were brought out more recently than that,
and we're being litigated at the time the DNA evidence
became an issue with Missy Woods.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
We're talking with Michael Dougherty, the Boulder County District Attorney
and candidate for Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
How in your so you've decided to retry him rather
than just say you believe that you can convict him again.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
That's the analysis and the conclusion we reached.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yes, will there be any admissible DNA evidence this time.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Around, that will certainly be litigated before the trial, and
we asked for a trial date of October of this year.
The defense asked for a trial date late in twenty
twenty six. Ultimately the court set it for May of
twenty six for trial.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Is Michael Clark free in the community right now?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
I had made the decision to restore him to his
bond status that he had during the first trial, and
I did that because he had given every indication that
he was going to appear for court through that process
and then in the process, since.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Should I infer from that that you do not believe
Michael Clark poses a current danger to the community.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
That is correct, and I would highlight for you that
the murder was committed in nineteen ninety four. He was
not prosecuted the first time around until twenty twelve, and
during that time, to my knowledge, did not have any
criminal offenses.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And since then that is true as well.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is there a claimed or suspected motive.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
In the murder?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Yes, and I, as you know, under the ethical rules,
I can't get into too much of the evidence because
it's but there are reasons why the police identified him
as a suspect literally in the first day or two
after the murder of Marty Grisham.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
All right, let me try to ask this in a
way that you can answer.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
I realized it's an ongoing case, in a murder case,
so you are going to be kind of limited. Can
you recount for me any evidence or testimony given in
the first trial in public that went to motive.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
So what I would say is, of course, the defendant's
innocent unlesson until proven guilty, and the charges and merely
allegations until.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Proven in court.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
At the first trial where he was found guilty by
the jury a murder in the first degree, there was
evidence presented of Marty Grisham's checks being stolen from his
home and an individual writing those checks out to his
own name, and that check fraud, those stolen checks being
discovered the same day as the murder being committed.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
That was all evidence that jury heard.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Last question for.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
You on this, when it came to the decision whether
to retry, after you got all the information that you
requested from your team and from your own research, did
you find the decision to go ahead and retry to
be a fairly easy decision once you had the information
in front of you of what you would bring to
(10:35):
the trial or was it a close call.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
What I would say is Marty Grisham was gunned down
in cold blood, so obviously we want to make sure
that we reached the right results for him and his
family in the community. But also I recognize the responsibility
I owe to the accused in any case to make
these decisions really thoughtfully and after a careful analysis of
all the evidence against the defendant, and that analysis took
(10:59):
quite some time. I wanted to make sure that we
were on the right track in any case impacted by
missy Wood's misconduct. It requires us to look at all
the other evidence in a case. So, for example, in
a case like this, at the time this murder was
first when the murder was committed in ninety four, DNA
was just beginning to be used in criminal cases in
Colorado and across the United States. So murder cases before
(11:21):
then have been solved without DNA, and of course murder
cases since then sometimes don't involve DNA, So it involves
a careful analysis.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Of all the evidence.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Motive means any statements of defendant makes after murder's been committed,
they may indicate he's in fact responsible for the murder.
So going generally speaking, going through all that evidence in
each one of the cases where missy Wood's conduct may
have impacted the integrity of the conviction, something that we've
approached really thoughtfully and put a ton of work into
making sure we're on the right track in each one
(11:51):
of those cases.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Michael Dougherty is Boulder County District Attorney. He is candidate
for Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
You know, for he hasn't.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Michael doesn't hasn't asked me to talk about any politics
at all, But for for my own perspective, he's the
most credible candidate in this in this race at this time.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
And even though Michael Michael is.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
A Democrat and I don't normally lean that way, I
have tremendous respect for the way he does his job
and uh and I think he's probably the right guy
for AG.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
The website if you want to learn more about that.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
That campaign is Michael for AG dot com, which is
separate from what he's doing right now, and his day
to day job is DA for Boulder County and he's
doing it very well. Thank you so much for your
for your time. Michael always appreciate having you here.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Ross, thanks for having me on, and I hope you
and your listeners have a great day.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
YouTube YouTube go run one hundred miles at eleven thousand
feet altitude and talk to you later
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.