Available 24/7 – Free Initial Consultation

Shazam Kianpour

& Associates, P.C.

Available 24/7 – Free Initial Consultation

A PROVEN DEFENSE TEAM

COMMITTED TO PROTECTING YOU

A PROVEN DEFENSE TEAM

COMMITTED TO PROTECTING YOU

Super Lawyers Badge
Lead Counsel Badge
Avvo Clients Choice Badge
BBB Badge

Colorado court: don’t imply proof of sex crime, just argue your case

| Dec 21, 2020 | Sex Crimes

All criminal allegations are not equal.

Put another way: Some accusations leveled by Colorado police officers and prosecutors come with comparatively heavy consequences.

Take sex charges, for example, which we spotlight on our website at the Denver law firm of Shazam Kianpour & Associates. We underscore from the firm’s long experience and proven advocacy the need for a defendant “to find an experienced criminal defense lawyer focused all day long on how to beat sex crimes charges.”

The penalties that can ensue from a Colorado sex crimes conviction render crystal clear why timely, on-point and aggressive legal help is imperative. Criminal downsides potentially include these outcomes:

  • Lengthy prison term, sometimes for life
  • Lifelong probation
  • Mandatory participation in a treatment program
  • Registration on sex offender registry, with ongoing reporting requirements
  • Adverse lifetime stigma that can mar opportunities across a broad spectrum

Criminal authorities aggressively pursue convictions and harsh results in sex crimes cases. Their strong resolve to do so can sometimes invite exacting scrutiny from Colorado appellate courts focused on irregularities or misconduct marked with prosecutorial efforts.

That was recently on display in one case involving the conviction of an individual on multiple sex assault charges. An appeals panel ruled that a detective testifying in front of a jury improperly spoke concerning the process relevant to investigating a case and police officers’ determinations surrounding probable cause to file criminal charges.

The appellate tribunal ruled in the instant case that statements supporting investigators’ assumptions of guilt during the pretrial phase shape could improperly influence the jury. The court stressed that the detective’s testimony “implied that the police and the prosecution had screened the case for sufficient evidence and … believed [the defendant] was guilty.”

The conviction was reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Archives

Schedule A Free Consultation

FindLaw Network Logo
Email Us Today