Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to Division 21 of the 4th Judicial
District here in Colorado Springs.
Before we call the first case this morning,
it is worth noting that the court received
a request for expanded media coverage
in the case of the people of the state
of Colorado versus Anderson Aldridge.
The court has granted that request,
which means that the media,
in addition to its usual ability to
attend the proceedings and report
on this matter, has also been.
Granted permission to record live
stream and rebroadcast certain
portions of the hearing this morning.
Both the public and the media should
keep in mind that the Court must balance
the freedom of the press with the rights
of the parties to due process and a
fair trial and service of that mission.
Colorado law provides that the court
retains the power to curtail expanded media
coverage when the needs of the case dictate.
The media and the public are encouraged
to view my order at the Colorado Judicial
website and the website for the 4th
Judicial District here in Colorado Springs.
I have approved expanded media
coverage only for the filing of
charges portion of today's hearing.
I will notify you when that
portion of the hearing is complete.
At such time,
recording of the proceedings must cease.
The media and the public are welcome
to attend the remainder of the hearing,
but no further recording or live streaming.
Is allowed for attendees who are
physically present in the courtroom.
You are reminded that appropriate
courtroom behavior is required.
Audible outbursts or other
interruptive behavior is not allowed.
Any violation of these orders will
subject the violator to the loss of the
right to attend these proceedings and
or sanctions for contempt of court.
Next I will have the parties
announce their presence.
We will start with the
prosecution, Mr. Allen.
Michael Allen, Jennifer Beeman
and Reggie Short on behalf of the
people of the state of Colorado.
Good morning. Good morning.
And now for the defense,
Your Honor. Joseph Archibald Rose
Roy off of the Colorado State public
defender on behalf of Mix Aldrich,
who appears in custody to my right.
Good morning.
Did the people have charges
to file in this case?
Yes, your honor.
And we electronically filed this morning,
but in the abundance of cash,
we also have paper copies.
We provided a paper copy to defense.
I have a paper copy for the court as well.
Thank you.
Filing 305 total charges.
Counts and theories of
murder in the first degree,
attempted murder in the first degree,
assault in the first degree.
Assault in the second degree and many
counts of bias motivated crimes,
and then the attendance of COV charges,
crime and violence charges as well.
Does the defense waive any further
reading or advisement on these charges?
Now, the defense has already
requested a preliminary hearing.
Should we be scheduling that
hearing today? You are speaking to
Mr. Allen. That was our hope is to find a
date that works in the courts calendar.
The court staff had given
us some potential dates.
We had explained to the prosecution and Mr.
Allen shared with me that we have a lot
of obligations already, both of us,
that are making it difficult to get
something scheduled in early spring.
So the defense request would be
to accept the dates that the
court staff had offered us.
I think it's May 31st,
June 1st, June 2nd.
What are the people's thoughts about
the defense suggestion as to the timing
of the preliminary hearing? Judge
obviously to set something up beyond the
35 days we would need a waiver from defense
to go beyond that 35 day requirement.
We are also requesting that this is a
proof evident presumption great as a
as well as a preliminary hearing if the
defense makes that appropriate waiver.
I think we can look at scheduling out
further. I can tell the courts and
I think defense has already signaled
this to the Court as well that this
case we expect to be very voluminous.
It will probably take some time for
defense to digest and be ready for.
Our presentation of evidence at a
preliminary hearing slash proof
evident presumption great.
So it seems to make sense giving
a proper waiver to set this out to
some degree into the future.
Obviously we've talked to the courts
offline and and look at some dates
which I think would be appropriate.
It is my preference that the
defense received the discovery and
time to make meaningful use of it
prior to the preliminary hearing.
The date that my staff suggested
to counsel was in February.
I'm confident are the people that
the core of the discovery could be
provided to the defense in enough
time for them to make reasonable
use of that by that February date.
So there will be obviously this
case is going to be continued to be
investigated for quite some time.
I would suspect I should also say
in relation to that that it's it's
somewhat likely that we will amend
charges to add or maybe even subtract
depending on as we identify potentially
more victims in this case that we
have not identified to this date.
I think a big chunk of it
should be available to them.
I just don't know what their
work schedule will allow them to
digest before that February date.
And I think that's what defense is signaling,
is that they may not be able to
really make meaningful use of
discovery by that February date.
The defense's suggestion of
the May date strikes me as.
Much longer than the usual period of
time that we would delay a preliminary
hearing in a case like this, what's the
people's thoughts about their suggestion?
So, so part of I think
what gets us out that far,
judge is just our respective schedules.
I can tell the court that.
I've got a six week trial scheduled
on the Leticia Stout case that
is scheduled to start on May.
I mean I'm, I'm sorry, on March.
17th and again that's for we'll
be jury selection and then
we'll start presentation of
evidence the following Monday.
And again we're scheduled for
a 6 week trial on that case.
I think because of the challenges
that I have specifically and then
I think defense also has some
lengthy trials in the interim.
I think that's the reason why
they are potentially looking
at pushing it out that far.
Obviously we'll defer to the
court as to ultimate scheduling,
but I think those are the scheduling
challenges that we're all dealing with.
How many days do you believe the?
Preliminary hearing and the
proof evident presumption,
great hearing will take.
Judge, I think that we can present our
evidence at that hearing in two days.
Mr Archambo, your estimation
of the length of this hearing,
I have no idea given on how
little discovery of the total
volume we've received given
that we just got the complaint.
They did file it a little
ahead of time today,
but we haven't even able to really
digest it in any meaningful way.
Have you received any discovery yet? We
started receiving discovery on Friday.
And we've been starting to try to
read it and review it in media.
It's it's ongoing how we're receiving it,
I believe it will be for some time.
I don't believe my staff ever
received a response from you about
whether those February dates you
are available. Your Honor, Mr
Bowman obviously isn't here with me.
The we would not be ready to proceed to
pulmonary hearing on this February dates
due to some obligations we have for
other clients and other cases that we
have to be either in or preparing to do.
I myself have a trial that starts
early March, that's a four week trial
homicide trial that I have and some
other important preliminary hearings
and some other homicides in February.
I appreciate your argument,
but I'm not convinced.
I'm going to go ahead and schedule
this proof evident presumption.
Great hearing on those dates in
February that my staff provided to you.
I believe we can do this
hearing in two days and.
I'm familiar with how your office
generally litigates this type of case,
and I'm certain that they have
the resources to make sure that
you're available on that date.
And so from my staff,
that date in February again was.
February 22nd through the 24th.
Starting at 8:30 in the
morning or 9 starting at 8:30.
You know I guess I just have to make it clear
for the record we are object objecting
the court saying the primary hearing
over thanks Aldriches objection
and we're doing so under ex REL
Farina 522 piece 2nd 589 at paid at
591 Colorado Supreme Court 1974.
And we believe that we are
not going to be ready,
we will not be effective on that
date and we think that that is
why we are objecting your Honor.
Understood. As you received
discovery and you're able to
form concrete opinions about
what it is you need to do in
preparation for that hearing,
I will entertain future
motions on this subject.
And judge, just for record purposes,
we still do need a waiver to get even out
to that February trials or I'm sorry,
proof, evident presumption,
great prelim hearing date.
We have discussed that Miss Aldrich
has no objection to that waves 35 days
don't know the coordinates on writing,
but we've discussed that in detail.
No objection. We were waiving that.
I'll accept the 35 day waiver.
Before we terminate the recordable
portion of the proceeding,
is there anything else either side
has regarding the filing of charges?
Not from us, judge.
Another fence runner.
As the attorneys know,
there's a standard protection order
related to the victims in the case that
will enter as of this moment right now.
We will need the defense to
sign that before he leaves this
morning and so you'll need to be
involved with that with my staff.
This concludes the recordable
portion of this morning's hearing,
and the media is ordered to cease any
recording or live streaming at this time.