\u201cThe sheriff\u2019s office did everything correctly,\u201d said District Court Judge Todd Plewe.<\/p>\n
Plewe explained the defendant\u2019s first and second requested background checks performed by the sheriff\u2019s office were completed correctly, but he said two misdemeanor charges did not appear on either criminal history reports. Plewe said it appears the defendant was neither arrested nor fingerprinted on the previous charges, which is likely the reason why the charges didn\u2019t show on the background checks.<\/p>\n
On Tuesday, March 11, The Cortez Journal reported that the sheriff\u2019s office conducted a background check on the wrong burglary suspect.<\/p>\n
After further investigation, a total of three separate background checks of the burglary suspect were conducted, two by the sheriff\u2019s office and the third by the district attorney\u2019s office. The sheriff\u2019s reports were accurate but incomplete, according to Eric Hogue, court administrator for the 22nd Judicial District.<\/p>\n
Montezuma County Undersheriff Lynda Carter said she believed both background checks conducted by the department were complete. She said the sheriff\u2019s office conducts all checks the same way.<\/p>\n
Hogue said the original background check conducted by the Montezuma County Sheriff\u2019s Office correctly identified the burglary suspect by date of birth and Social Security number, but the report didn\u2019t contain the defendant\u2019s criminal history. The court ordered the sheriff\u2019s office to conduct a second background check, but it too lacked some history, Hogue said.<\/p>\n
The background check conducted by the sheriff\u2019s office was included in the court\u2019s case file, which District Court Judge Todd Plewe utilized to modify the suspect\u2019s bond conditions. On Thursday, March 13, Plewe granted a defense counsel request to remove a GPS monitoring system from the defendant.<\/p>\n
At the earlier hearing, confusion was compounded when Durango defense attorney Rae Randolph realized the district attorney\u2019s background check used the wrong date of birth, height, weight and social security number to identify her client, Brent Walker, the suspect in the case.<\/p>\n
Without accurate information, Randolph said, she can\u2019t offer her client a proper defense.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs the district\u2019s chief law enforcement officer, the district attorney has an obligation to provide factual information in discovery,\u201d said Randolph. \u201cIt\u2019s crucial that the discovery is accurate.\u201d<\/p>\n
District Attorney Will Furse admitted that the wrong criminal history was submitted to defense counsel. He said that when entering the suspect\u2019s information into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, the program automatically retrieved several defendants as close matches.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe provided the wrong information in discovery,\u201d said Furse. \u201cWe should have reviewed the material more closely.\u201d<\/p>\n
Randolph said Furse\u2019s report included disparities in age, hometown, and height of her client.<\/p>\n
Plewe isn\u2019t privy to discovery materials, Hogue said.<\/p>\n
Walker and two other defendants were charged last year in connection to multiple thefts. Court records allege the three suspects stole more than $20,000 in computer equipment, firearms, Native American artifacts and hunting equipment from multiple locations over several months last fall.<\/p>\n
Facing two felony counts of theft, two felony counts of burglary and a single felony charge of criminal mischief, Walker is scheduled for an Aug. 18 jury trial.<\/p>\n
To alleviate future confusion, Plewe instructed attorneys from both sides to stand in front of the courtroom podium to ensure all conversations were properly recorded. Prior to Thursday\u2019s proceedings, attorneys routinely addressed the court from their respective tables, which included microphones, but do not accurately record the proceedings.<\/p>\n