Court Rulings
Judge Hoffman has been on the Denver bench for over 25 years. He presided in both of Abe's Grand Jury's. He gave the Denver District Attorney's Office free reign to violate numerous Grand Jury rules. Ironically, he then presided over Abe's kidnapping case all the way through trial and sentencing. These are the following transcripts to show how Judge Hoffman refused to follow The Constitution and was biased against Abe.
Instead of doing his duty as a judge and giving a written order as to why he was denying Abe's motions, Judge Hoffman just stamps DENIED. The reason for this is, not only was Judge Hoffman Abe's trial judge, he was also the grand jury judge. Therefore, he is reviewing his own rulings.
Abe and his attorney discovered in November of 2022 after an open records request that Abe was never indicted.
There is no true bill indictment from the Grand Jury. Soon after this discovery, Abe's attorney immediately filed a motion with the Colorado Court of Appeals to hear the issue, in which they refused. She then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, whom also refused. Click here to read the motions and briefs. The Denver District Attorney, Beth McCann, has also been informed of this and did not respond to Abe's attorney. Also informed was Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.Before jury deliberations, Judge Hoffman gave the jurors an incorrect, abolished jury instruction on First-Degree Kidnapping, which was removed from the Colorado Revised Statues in 1986, in the following case
4th Amendment Ruling He started his career as a prosecutor with the Denver DA's office before he was appointed to a Denver District Court judge. He presided over Abe's murder case and made numerous contradictory rulings. He also abandoned The Constitution, ignoring Abe's facts. The following is more information about how he refused to apply and rule on the violation of Abe's 4th Amendment right when he allowed in contraband from an illegal search.
Weeks before Abe's murder trial was to begin, there was a hearing held to exclude evidence the Denver District Attorney's were trying to introduce. This was guns, drugs, and money that was found in Jimmy Roberts and another mans apartment.
The Denver District Attorney did not even put up an argument for it's legality. They were well aware that ex-prosecutor Judge Bayless would allow the evidence in. Again, Judge Bayless abandons and suspends The Constitution in Abe's case. He, along with all judges, take an oath to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, but as you have read he refused to make a ruling as to the constitutionality of the illegal search, instead he overrides the constitution. Ironically, as a corrupt judge he criticizes another corrupt judge.
In the 2022 Colorado Supreme Court ruling, the state created rule called "Res Gestae" was abolished. Abe's trial & appellate attorneys argued against the constitutionality of Res Gestae 15 & 20 years ago respectively.
Moments before Abe’s murder case was to begin in April of 2002 prosecutor Joe Morales makes the following request to ex-Denver prosecutor turned judge Jeff Bayless.
To no surprise, Judge Bayless again, sides with his prior office and excludes Abe’s whole family from attending the entire trial. They could not enter the court room and was only allowed to stay in the hallway outside of the court room. Joe Morales and the Denver District Attorney’s office were well aware that Abe, his parents and three siblings immigrated to the US alone as political refugees in 1991. They also knew his father died in 1987 to stomach cancer and that he had no other family members in America. Therefore, by excluding his mother and sister he would not have any family members in the court room supporting him. This is a common strategy used by prosecutors through out this country. They believe that if a jury sees a defendant doesn’t have any family supporting him they think less of him and would have an easier time finding him guilty and imposing the death penalty. In Abe’s case The Denver District Attorney’s office had the ideal jury: 10 whites ranging from their late 30’s to their 60’s and 2 blacks.
In reality, once again, the Denver District Attorney’s office and judge violated Abe’s constitutional rights. Abe’s mother and oldest sister, Elizabeth “Elsa” Hagos were never on any witness list.
The Denver District Attorney’s office put Abe’s ex-wife and sister, Saba Hagos, on the witness list as possible sentencing penalty witnesses, even though they had nothing to do with the facts of the case. Abe’s brother, Solomon Hagos, was also excluded from entering the court room.
In 1984 The United States Supreme Court ruled in Waller v. Georgia that was before any person can be excluded from entering a public trial, the following has to occur:
As you will notice judge Bayless did not follow the holdings of Waller vs. Georgia. Again, this is another example of misconduct, bias, corruption, and systematic racism in the Colorado Judicial System.
One of the most basic constitutional rights that citizens of this country have in the criminal justice system is the right to confront any accuser or any statements that the government wants to use against you. In Abe's case, the alleged shooter Sammang Prim made a custodial confession in December of 2000, over two years after the murder of Jimmy Roberts.
At Abe's trial, in April 2002, the Denver District Attorney's office subpeoned Prim to testify, but he refused. Then, they made a request to Judge Bayless to allow his custodial out of court heresay statements.
To no surprise, ex-prosecutor Bayless allows Prim's unchallenged out of court statements in at Abe's trial. Heresay is not only not permissible in your run-of-the-mill criminal case, in Abe's case it was a death penalty case where the government was trying to kill him. Therefore, the judge violated one of the most basic rights we have as Americans: The sixth amendment right to confrontation. This is Judge Bayless' reasoning in allowing Prim's statements in.
Samnang Prim's hearsay wasn't the only hearsay Judge Bayless allowed in Abe's trial. He allowed in an entire preliminary hearing from another case (click here to read full transcript)
In April of 2000, Abe's pubic defenders were ready and prepared for a very important hearing to determine if there was enough evidence to bound the case over for trial. Before the hearing started, the Denver District Attorney's office and Denver Police accused Abe's public defender, Fernando Freyre, of threatening the imprisoned wife of a jailhouse snitch they planted in the same pod as Abe. This was an unprecedented action taken by government officials. It was a major news story in the Denver Metro Area.
The following is an unconstitutional choice that Judge Bayless gave Abe.
Basically, Abe had to pick between two constitutional rights: 1) his right to counsel or 2) his right to present a defense. One of the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, recognized this and would have granted Abe certiorari petition. At that time, The Supreme Court was very political and therefore none of the other justices would agree to grant the certioary with Justice Mullarkey, even the so-called liberals Alex Martinez or Michael Bender.
After Judge Bayless' eronious ruling forcing Abe to pick between two constitutional rights, which caused him to have to not use the Public Defenders Office, two new attorneys were appointed, Nathan Chambers and Forrest Lewis. Nathan Chambers was an ex-Denver Prosecutor before switching sides and becoming a defense attorney. His wife is Carol Chambers, ex-Araphahoe District Attorney. (Click here to view her misconduct) At the October, 2000 hearing, appointing Chambers and Lewis to represent Abe, the following was revealed:
Judge Bayless abandoned his oath and duty to not follow precedent which required him to advise Abe and get a waiver hearing.
Around 3 months before Abe's April, 2002 trial, his defense attorneys requested an ex-parte hearing (a hearing before a different judge, without prosecutors and spectators and with conflict-free counsel to advise Abe). They proclaimed they had a conflict of interest with Abe that required them to withdraw from representing Abe. They refused to disclose the conflict, so the judge denied their motion. A few weeks later, on January 25th, they said the following:
As officers of the court, their declarations are taken as if they were under oath. Therefore, Judge Bayless should have granted their motion to withdraw and appointed Abe attorneys that wanted to represent him without any conflicts of interest. Because of Judge Bayless' erronious ruling, Abe went to trial with two attorneys whom didn't want to represent him and proclaimed they had a conflict of interested that would affect their representation of him.
Around the 2nd or 3rd day of Abe's trial, one juror reported to the bailiff that another juror smelled of alcohol. This exchange happened without Abe's presence.
In your run of the mill case, and definitely in a death penalty case, the judge was required by presendent to inquire into the matter. He was required to determine at a minimum if their was juror misconduct. There was numerous alternate jurors that the judge had available to replace the drinking juror with. Due to the fact that the exchange wasn't recorded, Abe had to repeatedly ask his attorneys to put on the record so that it may be resserved for appellate review. They reluctantly did, in September of 2002, five months after Abe's trial and conviction.
The following is a motion filed by Judge Egelhoff's dismissing the manufactured home invasion case of Abe's childhood friend's Grandma and Uncle. (Case #99CR1026 Denver County)
This is pre-sentence advisement transcript that Judge Egelhoff oversaw for Johnny "Sniper" Neng-Leng. He gave Mr. Neng-Leng the minimum 10 years for shooting someone 5 times in the back. This was not Mr. Neng-Lengs first time in trouble with the law, but the judge still showed him mercy. This is how the Denver judges and The Denver District Attorney's office look out for eachother.
This is prosecutor Martin Egelhoff dismissing the home invasion case the Denver District Attorney's Office manufactured against him in November 1998 in order to arrest him.
The following document is the 35(c) postconviction motion that Abe filed. Judge Egelhoff was required under the judicial canons to recuse himself from the case. He did not and also denied Abe's motion without a hearing.
In 1998 and 1999 Martin Egelhoff prosecuted Abe when he worked with the Denver District Attorney's Office. 17 years later, he was a judge overseeing Abe's case. The judicial canons called for his recusal. Instead of following the law, he oversaw Abe's 35(c) postconviction motion and denied it without even giving him an evidentiary hearing. This is another example of judicial corruption in the Colorado Judicial System.
The following document is the 35(c) postconviction motion that Judge Robbins denied without giving Abe an opportunity to prove his claims. Like Egelhoff, he did not disclose his conflict of interest with Abe.
Judge Robbins denied Abe relief and even an evidentiary hearing in his kidnapping case, while similtaneously acknowledging numerous errors. Robbins bent over backward to uphold his formers office's illegal conviction. Judge Robbins is a replica of Justice Clarence Thomas of The United States Supreme Court.
Judge Baumann started his career as a death penalty litigator, representing many black defendants and has acknowledged and commented on systematic racism in Colorado and in the judicial system. In 2017, he was appointed to the Denver District Court bench. Abe's three 35(c) postconviction motions were in Baumann's courtroom. He denied all three of Abe's motions and even refused to give him a hearing to prove his claims contrary to precedent.
Ironically, the last case he tried was People v. Oliver 2015 CR1559 (Denver County), where he argued that the Denver Police stopped and detained Mr. Oliver just because he was a black man walking down the street
He made this ruling regarding the life without parole sentence for the first degree kidnapping:
Judge Baumann ignored the victim Billy Leopp's trial testimony, the jury's doubt about Abe's intent and the charges Abe was acquitted of. (see below) He conveniently ignored these to get to a conclusion that he desired. Baumann also refused to follow or even mention a recent decision from The Colorado Court of Appeals which stated it is cruel and unusual to give someone life without parole in a kidnapping case where no death resulted. The sentence of life without parole for First-Degree kidnapping is the same sentence numerous mass murderers in Colorado received.
This case, People v. Clark (18CA2293 decided 8/26/21), cites the 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment
This goes to prove the extend of systematic racism in the judicial system, you can take a man who has acknowledged and witnessed these problems in the system, but once appointed to the bench he falls in line with the system he once railed against. This is the definiton of systematic racism and corruption.
The following documents are Justice Rice's judicial canon violations and her bias against Abe.
Justice Rice followed the judicial canons and stayed off of Lisl Auman’s case, in which the court reversed her conviction. She did the exact opposite in Abe’s case.
As you can see here, Justice Rice conducts herself inappropriately and unprofessionally outside of her judicial role. She went out of her way to make sure Abe got no relief and even denied him and hearing to prove his claims. This is blatant corruption in the Colorado Judicial System.
Judge Alan Loeb wrote the opinion in Abe's kidnapping direct appeal even though he acknowledged numerous errors including the incorrect jury instruction given in First-Degree Kidnapping.
In Abe's case (left), Judge Casebolt ruled that he had to prove an adverse affect for a reversal, while in Lopez case (right), under the same circumstances he found Lopez did not have to.
Even though Judge Casebolt ruled that there was no probable cause to search the apartment, he still refused to apply the 4th amendment to Abe's case. Judge Sandra Rothenberg also concurred to this conclusion as she did in Abe's kidnapping direct appeal.
This 3 judge panel of Casebolt, Rothenberg, and Miller bent over backwards to not reverse Abe's convictions while overturning numerous other convictions for a single error. The cumulative error doctrine requires reversal when there has been more than one error in an appeal. Even though they acknowledge the numerous errors, they still refused to reverse Abe's conviction. This was a death penalty case where the Denver District Attorney's Office was trying to kill Abe. When the death penalty is filed in a case, a defendants rights are supposed to be more sacred.
Judge Sandra Rothenberg was on both of Abe's direct appeal opinions. She concurred in denying him relief in both cases. In the Barnum case, which was a white supremacist involved in the killing of an African immigrant, she agreed to overturn that case over one single error of the same caliber as Abe's.
Judge Martinez was the only minority on the Colorado Supreme Court for a long time span.
He was considered a liberal. He denied Abe relief and even an evidentiary hearing in the kidnapping case. In the murder case he refused to grant Abe petition to hear the case, even though he is voted numerous times to grant relief to other defendants with the same constitutional violations as Abes. The Fry, Aumann, and Stevens cases are just a few examples. While Justice Martinez is a minority,this shows that even minorities are susceptible to fall in line to systematic racism.