Setting the Record Straight

 

 


The Denver District Attorney's Office strives to provide  accurate information and proper context to the public through the media on cases and issues of public interest.

Occasionally a story may misrepresent or misinterpret the facts.  In those cases, we can "set the record straight" by making additional information available directly to the public.

There have been recent inquiries about a letter sent to the Denver Manager of Safety Office and the Denver Police Chief by the Denver District Attorney’s Office regarding current media reports. That letter is posted here: 12-02-09 Letter

On Friday, October 23, 2009 an article appeared in The Denver Post by Karen Crummy titled “Questions raised by Obama nominee’s FBI chat.” Another article by this reporter titled, “Obama backs Villafuerte, despite Colo. GOP concern,” appeared on Saturday, October 24, 2009.

These articles contain a number of statements related to the Denver District Attorney’s Office that are inaccurate or misleading, and which are based in part on inaccurate and erroneous reporting by that same reporter that appeared in The Denver Post in 2007.

The implication of these articles is to wrongly suggest that the Denver District Attorney’s Office should not have used the NCIC database to look up a defendant it had prosecuted earlier. The articles also go on to suggest that information from the database was improperly shared with others.

In February 2008, U.S. District Court Judge John Kane addressed these concerns in a court ruling made in the U.S. v. Voorhis case.

The actions of the Denver District Attorney's
office, that is the District Attorney for the Second
Judicial District of the State of Colorado, as presented
here, requires some comment. It is -- and I don't think
this is opposed by defense counsel in his arguments. It
is a legitimate use of NCIC for a law enforcement agency
such as a State District Attorney's office to obtain
information to respond to inquiries from the public, and
that public includes the press, political organizations
and committees.

There is no evidence of Denver District Attorney's
office personnel engaging in any illegal activity. All
that can be said is that the District Attorney's office
was responding. They were responding to actions
precipitated by the defendant in this case according to
his own motion.

In November and December 2007, the Denver District Attorney’s Office posted clarifying and corrective information on its “Setting the Record Straight” web page related to this. Here is that information:

Setting the Record Straight

On Tuesday, December 4, 2007 an article appeared in The Denver Post by Karen Crummy titled “More probing of data access by DA’s Office.”

This article, including the headline, contains a number of statements that are inaccurate or misleading.

  • The headline “More probing of data access by DA’s Office” erroneously implies that the Denver DA’s Office is the target of a probe.

    The Denver DA’s Office has cooperated in providing additional information to investigators who are preparing for the further prosecution of Corey Voorhis.

  • The sub-headline “Investigators want to find out why it got, without authorization, crime data wrongfully obtained earlier” is completely false.

    The Denver DA’s Office was authorized to access NCIC and did so in the normal course of business for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

  • The article states, “Denver DA communications director Lynn Kimbrough said she most likely notified the Ritter campaign of the information on NCIC they found… “.

    What Ms. Kimbrough has said (and what has been posted on this website since November 21, 2007), is that she returned calls providing confirmation that a defendant by the name of Walter Ramo and a defendant by the name of Carlos Estrada-Medina were in fact the same person and that she provided additional detail about the facts of the Ramo case, which was prosecuted by the Denver DA’s Office in 2001. No confidential or privileged information was released.

  • The article states, “The DA’s Office version of events has evolved in the past three weeks”. This is inaccurate.

    The Denver DA’s Office has cooperated fully with investigators in this matter. There has been no change in what the facts are or were. A factual summary about this matter was posted on the Denver DA’s website on November 21, 2007. It remains on the website and has not changed.

  • The article states, “When Chuck Lepley, senior deputy district attorney, walked by her office, she asked him if he could help figure out whether the ad was true”. This is inaccurate.

    Ms. Kimbrough sought the assistance of Assistant District Attorney Chuck Lepley to determine if a defendant by the name of Walter Ramo and a defendant by the name of Carlos Estrada-Medina were in fact the same person to appropriately respond to Criminal Justice Records requests for information, a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

  • The article states, “Lepley asked an employee to run the man’s name through NCIC in order to find out whether the ad was true”. This is inaccurate.

    The NCIC database was one of several tools used to try to confirm the defendant Ramo and the defendant Medina were the same person to appropriately respond to Criminal Justice Records requests.

November 21, 2007


A federal criminal prosecution against Cory Voorhis has prompted media coverage that includes information about the Denver District Attorney’s Office. Some of the media coverage and some of the information in the motion is either incorrect or incomplete.

A Motion to Dismiss filed by attorneys for Cory Voorhis suggests employees of the Denver District Attorney’s Office had no work-related reason to access the NCIC database concerning Walter Ramo/Carlos Roberto Estrada-Medina and therefore that “at least raises the inference that it was requested for political purposes.” That assertion is not true.

The facts:

  • A Beauprez political campaign ad was airing at the time about a criminal case involving Carlos Roberto Estrada Medina handled by the Denver DA’s Office in 2001. Paper files and computer files were used to gather information to respond to the inquiries this ad generated, including the initial question of whether this defendant was the same as Walter Ramo.
  • Access to the NCIC database was done in the normal course of business, by authorized personnel, to carry out the responsibilities of the Denver District Attorney, including providing information to the media, the campaigns, and the public that is neither confidential nor privileged. This would be the same public information routinely provided upon request in similar cases.
  • The District Attorney’s Office had a responsibility related to the case of Walter Ramo/Carlos Roberto Estrada-Medina/Eugene Estrada—to determine his true identity, current status, and whether the subsequent California criminal act or any other criminal acts could result in further consequences such as revoking his probation in Colorado, California or any other state.
  • No one in the Denver DA’s Office was aware of anyone else accessing NCIC to look up Walter Ramo at the time, nor did anyone audit NCIC to determine such use.
  • No NCIC records were ever turned over to non-DA personnel. No confidential or privileged information was released to the media, campaign representatives or others at this or any other time.
  • The Denver District Attorney’s Office had no involvement at any time in identifying or investigating Cory Voorhis. This has been handled by state (CBI) and federal (FBI) agencies. The Denver DA’s Office learned of his identity from media reports.
  • The Denver District Attorney’s Office first learned of the involvement of the Harris County, Texas District Attorney’s Office from recent media inquiries.

Questions have been raised about when and why NCIC was used to pull up the Ramo records. The time frame is clarified here:

  • The Denver District Attorney’s Office had previously pulled the Walter Ramo paper file after it was cited in a September 30, 2006, Denver Post article.
  • On October 10, 2006, the Beauprez ad aired concerning Walter Ramo/Carlos Estrada-Medina. The media and the campaigns turned their attention to this case and calls came to the Denver District Attorney’s Office.
  • In following up on this matter, on October 12, 2006, at 12:45 p.m. the Ramo/Estrada-Medina records were obtained by Lynn Kimbrough from the local database. Later in the afternoon, at 3:39 p.m., the additional records were requested from the CCIC/NCIC database. At the request of Lynn Kimbrough (Denver DA Communications Director), Chuck Lepley (the Assistant District Attorney) asked an administrative assistant to request additional records from CCIC/NCIC. The records were retrieved from the system at 3:47 p.m. A printed copy of the Ramo/Estrada-Medina record was left for Mitch Morrissey.
  • Ms. Kimbrough returned calls providing confirmation that Ramo and Medina were in fact the same defendant (this had been a key question in the inquiries) and providing additional detail about the facts of the Ramo case.
  • Mr. Lepley continued to follow up with California officials on their case to confirm the facts of that case and determine if additional action was warranted by the Denver DA’s Office against this defendant.

The information that was requested of the Denver District Attorney’s Office during the 2006 campaign, and which is the subject of the current defense motion in the Cory Voorhis case, was public information that included:

  • The fact that the Beauprez ad was correct in stating that Walter Ramo and Carlos Roberto Estrada-Medina were the same person and that he was the person who committed the Colorado and California crimes.
  • The basic facts of the case concerning the California case in which the same subject defendant also used a third name, “Eugene Estrada,” in addition to the name “Carlos Roberto Estrada-Medina” used in the ad.
  • The fact that certain information in the Beauprez campaign TV commercial that first aired on October 10, 2006, would have required that someone access the NCIC database.


As part of the on-going investigation, Denver District Attorney’s Office staff met on Monday, November 19, 2007, with FBI and CBI investigators to provide further information and answer all of their questions about the background research and response of the Denver DA’s Office to the various inquiries concerning the Beauprez campaign ad of October 10, 2006 and the issue of illegal access of the NCIC database by Cory Voorhis and a criminal investigator located in Texas.

 

Denver District Attorney's Office

720-913-9000

Info@DenverDA.org