No.
In ttj 'uprein (Court of tljt uniteb 'tate
Joanna Blauch, Petitioner, V.
People of the State of Colorado by and through the People of the City of Westminster, Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Adams County District Court, Case No. 17CV30021; the Westminster Municipal Court, Case No. 2013-2484-DV
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Joanna Blauch, pro se PMB279
4800 Baseline Road - Suite E-104 Boulder, Colorado 80303-2643 Telephone: (720) 391-9166 [email protected] QUESTIONS PRESENTED
There is a growing sinkhole-sized need for some things to be simply clearer.
Does ruling the substantive nature of materially relevant documentary evidence with apparent exculpatory value effected non-existent, without applying any statutorily required standards of evi- dentiary error, contravene constitutionally guaran- teed substantial rights by applying standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in a vacuum?
Does it breach well-established law to rule that actual existing conflicted representation, memori- alized by counsel in writing, does not require upholding voluntary "knowing and intelligent" standards for valid waivers of substantial rights?
People make choices in the course of due process. People can make better choices. TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented...... Table of Contents...... ii Index of Appendices ...... iii Table of Authorities ...... iv Introductory Statement...... Petition for Writ of Certiorari...... OpinionsBelow...... Supplemental Brief Jurisdiction...... 2 Constitutional Provisions Involved...... 2 Relevant Supplemental Facts...... 2
REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ...... 4 I. [Question 1] This Court should decide whether ruling the substantive nature of materially relevant documentary evidence with apparent exculpatory value is non-existent, without applying any statutorily required standards of evidentiary error, contravenes constitutionally guaranteed substantial rights by applying standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in a vacuum...... 4 Quintana v. Colorado further informs this question of material self-defense evidence unconstitutionally excluded without valid state reason...... 5 "Minimally helpful" "scintilla of evidence" in lower courts does not eradicate this Court's equitable principles of due process evidentiary interests...... 6 II II. [Question 2] This Court should decide whether ruling that actual existing conflicted representation, memorialized by counsel in writing, does not require upholding voluntary "knowing and intelligent" standards for valid waivers of substantial rights breaches well-established law? .....9 "I Am Evidence" further informs this question presented centered on this Court's required voluntary "knowing and intelligent" valid waiver of Constitutional rights ...... 10 Without valid waiver, conflicted counsel suppressed materially relevant innocence evidence suffering breakdown in adversarial process; constructively aligning with prosecution's case based on credibility derogation because I reported a rape...... 13 CONCLUSION...... 17
INDEX OF APPENDICES Appendix D, Sections of (Postconviction) Affidavit of Excluded Corroborative Defense Witness Testimony from Justin McMillan, Notarized June 18,2014 ...... la Appendix E, Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, confirming third-party investigation of rape kit evidence, SANE medical examination, and report to Denver police, service letter dated November 15, 2015...... 8a Appendix F, MESA (Moving to End Sexual Assault), confirming mental soundness status of
'U defendant, service letter dated November 11, 2015...... l0a Appendix G, SPAN (Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence) provider to domestic violence victims (they do not provide service access to perpe- trators), service letter dated August 28, 2015 ...... 14a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anderson u. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...... 9
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984)...... 8
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) ...... 8
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) ...... 8
Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371, 381 (1933). ... 6
In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948)...... 8
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002)...... 15
Quintana v. Colorado (pending, docketed 18-6728) ...... passim
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ...1,5
Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 19 (1967) ...... 8
iv Webb v. Texas, 409 U. S. 95 (1972) . 8
Other Authorities
Associated Press, "Neighbors Fail to Summon Help As Woman Raped," Associated Press News (September 19, 1986)...... 9
Barstow, David, "The Louima Case: The Overview; Officer, Seeking Some Mercy, Admits to Louima's Torture," The New York Times, (May 26, 1999).... 9
Campbell, R. and Fehier-Cabral, G. (2018), Why Police "Couldn't or Wouldn't" Submit Sexual Assault Kits for Forensic DNA Testing: A Focal Concerns Theory Analysis of Untested Rape Kits. Law & Society Rev, 52: 73-105. doi:10.1111llasr.12310 ...... 13
Costello, Carol, "Is America really clueless about the meaning of rape?" CNN (May 28, 2014)...... 16
Elected Office of Wayne County Prosecutor, Detroit, Michigan, public-facing website (https://www.waynecounty.com/elected/prosecutor Ibiography.aspx) ...... 10
V Gelardi, Liz and Miller, Blair, "Former coma patient files suit claiming she was raped at Denver Health" (September 15, 2017)...... 10
"I Am Evidence," documentary film, (https://www.iamevidencethemovie.comf) ...... 2, 10, 11, 13, 16
Joyce, Kathleen, "Washington man who raped, took lewd photos of dying woman gets less than 3 years in prison," Fox News, (November 17, 2018)...... 10
The National Judicial Education Program, "JUDGES TELL: What I Wish I Had Known Before I Presided in an Adult Victim Sexual Assault Case," 2011, Document supported by Grant No. 2008-TA-AX-K051, awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice...... 13
Nicholson, Kieran, "Ex-Westminster police officer sentenced for unlawful sexual contact," The Denver Post, (November 29, 2018)...... 10
Phillips, Kristine, "A jury convicted a doctor of
raping a patient at a hospital -and sentenced him to probation," The Washington Post, (August 19,2018) ...... 10 Vi Szalavitz, Maia, "Why We're Psychologically Hardwired to Blame the Victim," The Guardian (February 27, 2018)...... 12
Wagner, Meg, "Colorado nurse sentenced to 15 years for sexually assaulting brain-injured patient," New York Daily News, (September 24, 2014)...... 10
Yamato, Jen, "The Awful Truth - The Brutal Rape and Murder That Changed New York City Forever," The Daily Beast, (June 2, 2016) ...... 9
Rules Sup. Ct. R. 14.1(f) ...... 2
Sup. Ct. R. 15.8...... 2
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. amend. VI ...... 2, 8, 9, 15 U.S. Const. amend. XIV...... 8
VII INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Thank you to this Court for allowing initial Petition to move forward despite typo on covers discovered post-printing. Those printed Petitions cost significant funds to print and deliver. I am grateful this Court did not require reprinting and reshipping and accepted the letter-sized formatted correction of typo to suffice. Typo is also corrected with this supplemental brief. Thank you.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Joanna Blauch respectfully requests this Court grant Writ of Certiorari to review decisions of Westminster Municipal Court denying postconviction relief and Adams County District (as Appellate Court for Municipal Court decisions). Petitioner is Defendant and Defendant-Appellant in courts below. Respondent is [the People of the State ofi Colorado, captioned by this Court's public- facing docket, dated December 13, 2018. Pending determination, as of this Supplemental Briefs submission date, is whether former respondent captioned "by and through the People of the City of Westminster" is valid respondent and whether same has vested authority for corresponding binding decisions on behalf of the state of Colorado before this Court. OPINIONS BELOW Lower court rulings are reprinted in Appendices A, B, and C, of Petition. 1 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF JURISDICTION Petitioner invokes this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 15.8 granting Supplemental Brief. Intervening new matter not knowingly available to Petitioner at filing informs this Court; calling attention to noteworthy intersection with Quintana v. Colorado (pending, docketed 18-6728). Also, documented in "I Am Evidence" with academically-vetted research - ongoing pervasiveness throughout these trial proceedings here as it permeates nationwide - prejudicial credibility derogation and corresponding selective prosecution here because I reported a rape.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED Constitutional Provisions involved here, according with Sup. Ct. R. 14.1(f) in Petition, are Amendments VI and XIV.
RELEVANT SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS When I get up every day, I choose to live because of my Senior-Citizen Vietnam-combat nurse mother. She's outlived national life-expectancy and most everyone around her. Fast-approaching daily, is the day I need to be economically sustainable to physically assist her daily life. I have family per- sonally depending on me to support their lives economically, physically and sustainably. I have a
2 community and country I am accountable to as a natural born citizen. The following illuminates possible horrors to unconstitutionally-convicted defendants, outside observation mounting, these baseline granular- level lower-court rulings might allow without reversal. Postconviction here: None denied admitted trial evidence was substantively diminished, nor, what the new previ- ously-excluded evidence proves: I am innocent.
None associated with prosecution -no judge, no prosecutor, nor trial counsel -ever denied trial verdict and resulting outcome would be different with new innocence evidence; neither judge makes any corresponding probabilistic determination. None stated the unconstitutional convictions subsequently actually valid, (compared to merely affirmed in initial direct appeal, not, postconviction collateral attack), illuminated by innocence proven by new evidence. Now—confronted with actually looking at comparative before beside after photographs showing bruise marks proving strangulation, none say I exaggerated that material fact validly requiring self-defense throughout relentless prosecution.
Both judges simply, clearly look away - entirely omitting documentary postconviction innocence evidence from determinations.
3 Answering postconviction appeal, prosecutor evades evidence proving innocence. Instead, he continues asserting as prosecution endorsement and credibility attack, irrelevant inflammatory alleged details corresponding to unrelated prior rape incident I reported. Reprinted in Appendix D are sections of nota- rized affidavit of witness to present sense communication and induced anxiety of alleged victim's prior violence corroborated by live testimony. (See also Tr. 06/27/16, pp.19:5-28:19.) "[T]here are many reasons that a reported crime will not be prosecuted." "[S]imply because a crime is not prosecuted does not mean that a crime did not occur. Joanna was courageous enough to come forward and report, and should not be personally penalized for the State's decision to not prosecute." (See Appendix E.) Within overall court record, reprinted in Appendix, letters of Victim's Organizations, provid- ing me services, documenting mental soundness despite allegations of mental illness and besmirched credibility because I reported rape.
REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
I. [Question 11 This Court should decide whether ruling the substantive nature of materially relevant documentary evidence with apparent exculpatory value is non-
4 existent, without applying any statutorily required standards of evidentiary error, contravenes constitutionally guaranteed sub- stantial rights by applying standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in a vacuum. People make choices in the course of due process. People can make better choices. Better choices are Constitutionally-mandated, equitably-principled choices. Looking away and allowing denials of fundamental substantial rights is not choosing Constitutionally-mandated, equita- bly-principled Rule of Law. Punishing defendants with relentless prosecution because they choose to report a rape and then consistently assert their documentarily provable innocence in surviving being strangled sends the message: you should have let yourself die.
A. Quintana v. Colorado further informs this question of material self-defense evidence unconstitutionally excluded without valid state reason.
If proverbially true - seeing is believing - nothing remains when judges look away in unlaw- ful denial of innocence evidence. Both cases involve reasonable grounds for ascertaining imminent dan- ger requiring self-defense. Both involve excluded materially relevant evidence violating defendants' rights to present complete defenses. Both involve
5 lower court determinations outlying this Court's precedents. This initial petition demonstrated lower courts flouting lawful evidentiary error standards to such granularity of effecting non-existent the very sub- stance of new innocence evidence. Quintana, corre- spondingly, asks this Court to clarify for the ever- rising tsunami of otherwise constructively silenced defendants: How is anyone supposed to use this Court's controlling standards when lower courts like these systematically omit actual evidence from determination itself?
B. "Minimally helpful" "scintilla of evidence" in lower courts does not eradicate this Court's equitable principles of due process evidentiary interests. "The fundamental basis upon which all rules of evidence must rest—if they are to rest upon reason—is their adaptation to the successful devel- opment of the truth." Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371, 381 (1933). The fact of reported prior incident of rape had no correlation to excluded defense evidence, including witness testimony as with Quintana. (See Sections II.A. and II.B., infra.) Excluded defense witness testified to present sense communication, like 911 call, during prior incident of alleged victim threat- ening violence. (See Appendix D and Tr. 06/27/16, 6 pp.19:5-29:19). "[H] elpful" testimony's reliability, credibility, and materiality remains undisputed. This testimony of specific incident of alleged victim's intimidation with defendant's contempora- neous statements of consequently feeling unsafe happened while witness was on the phone with defendant. (Tr. 06/27/16, pp.21:10-22:2.) This ex- cluded testimony is admissible just like alleged victim's admitted 911 call. Even though irrelevant, prosecutor proposed to legal expert that reported rape corresponded to excluded contemporaneous testimony corroborating defendant's imminent fear of alleged victim when he strangled her leaving the neck bruising marks clearly visible in the admitted after photo- graphs next to excluded before photographs. In keeping with implicit bias attached to reported rape -pervasive throughout proceedings -legal expert again referenced corresponding "can of worms." (See Sections II.A. and II.B., infra.) Caveat entirely omitted from both judges' determi- nations: "Here it's between no evidence and some evidence that could point to self-defense." (Tr. 08/30/16, pp.70:22-71:15.) "[M]inimally helpful." Not "irrelevant." Not "inadmissible." Not "immaterial." Not even "cumulative," as in Quintana. Constructing his own determinative standard, without citing any law, district judge ruled evidence conceded "helpful" to defense permissibly excluded. Absent from this Court's precedents and state law is lawful 7 exclusion of "helpful" defense evidence otherwise deemed "minimal." Rule of law is rule of law. "Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense." Chambers v. Missis- sippi, 410 U.S. 284, 301 (1973), citing to e.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U. S. 95 (1972); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 19 (1967); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948). As in Quintana, both judges here disregarded Constitutional violations of fair trial rights in precluding prior assaultive incidents. Legal expert confirmed counsel's allegations of no notice of alleged victim's "assaultive" propensity (documen- tary record evidence also confirms false) incredible as attempt to excuse deficiency. (See Tr. pp.108:25- 109:9 and Exhibit AE.) Cited also in Quintana, "whether rooted directly in the Due Process or Confrontation clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants 'a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Califor- nia v. Tronibetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). Complete is complete. Legal expert testified eight times defense evidence amounted to "nothing." (Tr. 08/30/16, p.45:21-23; p.47:8-10; p.47:23-25; p.48:11-12; p.63:15-18; p.71:12-15; p.73:18-21; and p.111:10-20.) Disregarding recorded trial proceed- 8 ings, district judge cited to legal expert's acknowl- edgement of "scintilla of evidence" (presented by prosecutor, not, counsel) as sufficient to establish defense foundation. "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [defendant's] position will be insuffi- cient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [defendant]." Ander- son v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
II. [Question 21 This Court should decide whether ruling that actual existing conflicted representation, memorialized by counsel in writing, does not require upholding voluntary "knowing and intelligent" standards for valid waivers of substantial rights breaches well- established law? There is no such thing as a "classic rape." People are raped at night and in blazing sun. People are raped behind closed doors and in full view of public sidewalks and where neighbors who could help see them, hear their screams, and do nothing. (See "The Awful Truth - The Brutal Rape and Murder That Changed New York City Forever," The Daily Beast, (June 2, 2016) and "Neighbors Fail to Summon Help As Woman Raped," Associated Press News (September 19, 1986). Both genders are raped by strangers, family, spouses, and objects. (See "The Louima Case: The Overview; Officer, Seeking Some Mercy, Admits to 9 Louima's Torture," The New York Times, (May 26, 1999). People are raped while they're dying. (See "Washington man who raped, took lewd photos of dying woman gets less than 3 years in prison," Fox News, (November 17, 2018). People are raped by nurses. (See "Colorado nurse sentenced to 15 years for sexually assaulting brain-injured patient," New York Daily News, (September 24, 2014). People are raped by doctors. (See "A jury convicted a doctor of raping a patient at a hospital -and sentenced him to probation," The Washington Post, (August 19, 2018). People are even raped by Westminster, Colorado police officers. (See "Ex-Westminster police officer sentenced for unlawful sexual contact," The Denver Post, (November 29, 2018). Even other people are raped at Denver Health Hospital. (See "Former coma patient files suit claiming she was raped at Denver Health" (September 15, 2017).
A. "I Am Evidence" further informs this question presented centered on this Court's required voluntary "knowing and intelligent" valid waiver of Constitutional rights. "No one would ask a robbery victim, why were you wearing that particular necklace?" - Kym Worthy, Wayne County Prosecutor. (See documentary film, "I Am Evidence" and public- facing website for elected office of Wayne County Prosecutor located in Detroit, Michigan.) 10 "I Am Evidence," outlining entrenched credibility derogation attached to reporting rape, perceived throughout the legal system, permeated trial proceedings here - festooning itself in self- documented conflicted counsel. First, prosecutor repeatedly characterized factually reported prior violent sexual assault perpetrated by multiple assailants -leaving me peeing blood for at least five days afterward -as supposed prior bad act, "acting out" and "had to be restrained." (Tr. 10/03/13, p. 14:8-10) In other words, when multiple attackers "restrain" you during rape and you register any resistance, that is merely a case of "acting out physically." Prosecutor's repeated illegitimate suggestions similarly identified pre-trial as "dancing around" irrelevant prior rape fact. (Tr. 10/03/13, p.23:2-18.) Facial logic exists. Being raped is against your will. Therefore, multiple perpetrators, as happened here outside of and irrelevant to trial incident, are literally required to restrain you from resistance during attack. Compounding prosecutor, counsel charged with effective advocacy, confessed postconviction complete personal disbelief of defendant. Counsel confessed completely disbelieving fact that rape kit examination containing materially exculpatory before photographs, clearly notified of multiple times, had even ever been performed. Thus, never personally confirming any associated facts. (Tr. 11 07/12/16, pp.25:20-27:14.) Yet, those facts: prior rape was reported, rape kit was performed, and case opened by the Denver police were confirmatively documented in the record postconviction to both trial judge and prosecutor by third-party investigation of Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center. (See Appendix E.) "The derogation of the victim comes as a defensive reaction against [one's] personal worldview unraveling," stated Dr. Laura Niemi, currently a professor of social psychology and global justice at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto, "explaining that the process is typically implicit." (See "Why We're Psychologically Hardwired to Blame the Victim," The Guardian (February 27, 2018) Even judges, when they confront uncomfortable reported rape facts, recognize a range of corresponding implicit bias permeating throughout trial proceedings. "Sexual assault cases present a unique challenge for the judiciary. They are unique in that they are beset with a myriad of deeply held stereotypes and misconceptions that can undermine the judicial process." (See "JUDGES TELL: What I Wish I Had Known Before I Presided in an Adult Victim Sexual Assault Case" by the National Judicial Education
Program.) -- Dr. Rebecca Campbell, whose research confirming pervasive legal system issues discounting credibility surrounding those who 12 report rapes appears throughout "I Am Evidence," affirms ongoing "long-standing biases about victim credibility." (See "Why Police "Couldn't or Wouldn't" Submit Sexual Assault Kits for Forensic DNA Testing: A Focal Concerns Theory Analysis of Untested Rape Kits," Law & Society Rev, 52: 73- 105.) While comprehensible, ethical duties of effective advocacy are not abrogated by implicit bias in human tendency to blame others when uncomfortably inconvenienced with material conflicting with personal worldview. Simply, "victim blaming"—irrevocably poisoning trial proceedings here—results from discomfort with vulnerable feelings when very bad, terribly harmful, dangerously scary things happen to "other people."
B. Without valid waiver, conflicted counsel suppressed materially relevant innocence evidence suffering breakdown in adversarial process; constructively aligning with prosecu- tion's case based on credibility derogation because I reported a rape. "I didn't want to bring up stuff that was, you know, upsetting." (Tr. 07/12/16, p.105:11-12.) "[G]iven what we know about the two different incidences, we've been through trial for this one." (Tr. 10/03/13, p.387:2-4.) "Can of worms." Nine times during legal expert testimony, "can of worms" was used specifically
13 referring to rape kit origin of comparative before photographs admitted postconviction proving mate- rial strangulation fact necessitating self-defensive physical contact. (Tr. 08/30/16, pp.46:25-47:1; p.47:21-25; p.48:7-12; pp.70:17-71:4; pp.110:20- 111:4; p.111:14-25; and pp.124:3-10.) Compara- tively, eight times legal expert confirmed there was "nothing" presented by counsel at trial supporting self-defense. (Tr. 08/30/16, p.45:21-23; p.47:8-10; p.47:23-25; p.48:11-12; p.63:15-18; p.71:12-15; p.73:18-21; and p.111:10-20.) From the beginning, prosecutor clearly stated awareness that defendant had no arrest or criminal history state- or nationwide; finding "not a terribly aggravated allegation." (Tr. 03/25/13, p.6:12-18.) Right before trial, prosecutor confirmed personally judging defendant competent: "I haven't heard any evidence that she's crazy." (Tr. 10/3/13, p.144:15- 16.) Further, charges were based on only one incident at trial. Despite these facts, prosecutor clearly insisted mental health treatment sanctions because of "two different incidences." Outside of incident of prior threatened violence by alleged victim, the only other incident attached to defendant ever broached was prior reported rape. Strangulation marks showing in police photographs were inflicted by alleged victim during trial incident, not, during prior reported rape. Any supposed restraint during rape does not abrogate material fact that alleged
IEI victim left neck bruising marks when strangling defendant. "An "actual conflict," for Sixth Amendment purposes, is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel's performance." Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 172 n.5 (2002). Clearly outlined in Petition of these questions presented, none denied divided loyalties of self-documented conflicted counsel, unequivocally confirming: "Yes. I - yes, I change my answer. I had doubts about my ability to be effective for [defendant, specifically]." (Tr. 07/12/16, p.67:16-17.) Counsel clearly identified actual conflict nexus that she "never heard in [her] life anyone consider the" details of defendant's reported rape to be rape: "I don't personally." Counsel further refers to defendant's report of rape with documentary evidence collected into a rape kit as mere "characterization" and "such an exaggera- tion as to be incredible." (Tr. 07/12/16, pp.108:22- 109:1.) Conflict invaded counsel's evidentiary presenta- tion so adversely that, directly contradicting copi- ous record evidence, she claimed "never heard it before - that [alleged victim] choked her, nearly into unconsciousness." (Tr. 07/12/16, p.38:17-20.) Further, conflicted counsel adopted prosecution's prejudicially inflammatory characterization, out- side of context that rape is against your will and therefore technically requires attackers to restrain you—to "had to be restrained" because any
15 resistance to rape is merely "acting out physically." (See Tr. 07/12/16, p.105:5-10, p.106:3-15, p.107:1- 23, and p.108:1-12.) Rape is an "upsetting" "can of worms." Many Americans, including some judges, "apparently don't know how to define rape. They find it difficult to figure out who is an actual victim. They can't even figure out who's a rapist." (See "Is America really clueless about the meaning of rape?" CNN, (May 28, 2014). The fact of backlog of untested rape kits "I Am Evidence" documents hinges on exponential decisions, like conflicted counsel made here, that further investigation of anything attached to reported rape is inconsequential. No civility exists with compelling conflicted counsel without valid waiver. No civility with broken-down adversarial process where conflicted counsel's actions suppress reliable critical self- defense evidence because it's personally upsetting. No civility with unchecked selective prosecution based on derogated credibility because defendant reported unrelated prior rape. No civility with municipal judges, lawfully knowing better, compel- ling public details of reported rape irrelevant to proven strangulation fact. No civility with punishment for surviving strangulation.
16 CONCLUSION The Court should grant a writ of certiorari and summarily reverse the decision below.
Respectfully submitted, JOANNA BLAUCH, Petitioner Pro Se Dated: January 16, 2019
17 APPENDIX D Joanna moved to Boulder and into the house we shared concurrently as platonic roommates in August 2012. In June of 2013, we both signed onto a lease together for another year at [redacted]; we concurrently resided as of this date. Sometime in late September 2012, Joanna met [alleged victim] and began to date him. Very soon into the relationship with [alleged victim], Joanna started telling me after every time that she would see [alleged victim] that he made her feel bad. [alleged victim] was abusive toward her, she related, both verbally and emotionally and she felt like he was unpredictable in the intensity of his negative emotions. I was alarmed by the fact that [alleged victim] was abusing Joanna. I did not like seeing Joanna continue to be hurt by [alleged victim]. It seemed like his treatment of her was causing her to feel helpless, depressed, and worthless. I strongly and consistently urged her to break things off with him. I told Joanna that she needed to recognize how badly she was being affected by [alleged victim]'s abuse. Her response was that [alleged victim] was depressed and needed her help in finding a job after being unemployed for more than a year. I told Joanna that I thought staying involved with [alleged victim] was bad for her. I told her that I thought she was too trusting, that she la needed to stop caring for people who mistreated her, that she needed to stop making excuses for [alleged victim]'s abuse, and that things were only bound to get worse. Still, she didn't seem to be able to separate from him. More than half of the time that Joanna would go to stay with [alleged victim], he would come to Boulder and transport her to his place in Westminster in his own car. She would then have to rely on him to bring her back to our house in Boulder. Late one evening in early November 2012 I received a call from Joanna. She had been with [alleged victim] at his house in Westminster and she had not driven her own car. Over the phone, she told me that [alleged victim] had suddenly exploded over a television show that she wanted to watch. She said that she had felt threatened by [alleged victim]'s rage and had left the apartment. She said that she didn't feel safe walking around by herself on the streets at that late hour. I asked her where [alleged victim] was. I was concerned that she was out there by herself so late. I wondered if [alleged victim] was going to come after her. I was concerned for her safety and asked her if she wanted me to come get her. She responded that she had to go back to [alleged victim]'s house because she had left a few of her
2a things there. She also went on to say that she actually thought she might be able to get him to calm down and take her home. She asked me to stand by for her call in case she was unsuccessful with getting [alleged victim] to calm down and take her home. Within the next hour, Joanna called me back to say that she had gone back to talk to [alleged victim] and that he was going to bring her back home. I told her that she didn't need to go with him and that I could easily come to get her. I asked her if she was safe and she said that she thought she would be okay. About thirty minutes later, Joanna arrived back at home after [alleged victim] drove her and dropped her off. We said very little and she basically went straight to bed. The next morning we talked more about what had happened with [alleged victim] the night before. She told me that when she returned to [alleged victim]'s apartment that he had never left, and that he denied doing anything wrong. It was surprising to me that he had never bothered to even check on her safety and that he had let her going walking out into the night alone. In the next few days that followed, [alleged victim] called, texted and emailed Joanna repeatedly trying to get her to meet with him. I told her that I didn't think it was a good idea to engage with him any further. Finally, she agreed
3a to meet him at a restaurant and bar where [name redacted], a mutual friend of ours was playing music. Afterward, she told me that [alleged victim] had spent several hours at the bar trying to convince her that he had done nothing wrong. She said that she felt good about sticking to her boundaries with him. She said that she had told [alleged victim] that she wasn't going to argue with him. She said that she told him that she felt like she could not continue to see him because he refused to take responsibility for hurting her, that she couldn't be with someone who didn't seem to care about her safety, and that she felt threatened by his violent rage. [Alleged victim] left the bar and Joanna came home at [name redacted] finished playing. Over the next few weeks, it seemed like [alleged victim] was working to break down her resistance to him. He kept calling, texting and emailing. Over Thanksgiving break while I was out of town visiting family, she told me that she had spent some time with him. She didn't go into too much detail, but she did say that he was still mistreating her, that she didn't feel safe, and that she was trying to end it with him for good. She said that her strategy was to ignore all communication from him. During the first week of December, [alleged
4a victim] caught her off guard by calling her at work. I had a dance performance coming up and [alleged victim] had pressured her into agreeing to get tickets and go with him. On her way home, she told me, the thought of having to see him again literally made her sick to her stomach. She said that she pulled over into a Staples parking lot and called [alleged victim]. She said that she told [alleged victim] exactly how she was feeling in relation to him; that she literally felt sick to her stomach about seeing him again and that she just wanted to part with him peacefully. [Alleged victim] got very angry with her, she said. She told him that they were over for good and that she was never going to having anything to do with him again. She said that she was concerned about what he might be planning to do. In spite of the fact that Joanna was the one who broke up with him, [alleged victim] seemed to be framing it as if he had been the one to do it. Joanna said that [alleged victim] had persisted in communicating some things to her since she had broken up with him that concerned her. She mentioned a message from him saying never to call him again. It didn't make sense to her because she had not responded to him at all since she broke up with him for good. Joanna was concerned that [alleged victim]'s behavior seemed unbalanced and posed a threat to
5a her. She only had one thing of his, a travel coffee mug. She asked me to deliver it to his doorstep so that he could not say there was possibly anything at all tying them together. I took the mug to his house and left it in a bag at his front door. In early February 2013, [alleged victim] contacted Joanna through her email address that she uses for work related matters. Even though, he had contacted her previously through her personal email and she had not responded. He asked her to reconnect with him. Joanna made sure to clearly respond in a return email message that she had not instigated any communication from him at all. She stated in the email that he had made a statement to her never to contact him again and that she had not. Even so, he pleaded with her to call him again. She unequivocally told him no. About one month later in March 2013, Joanna was assaulted at [redacted]. In the aftermath, I went and picked her up and brought her home. The next day, Joanna was talking with me about the assault and told me that she felt like she needed advice. [Alleged victim], she said, had been a [redacted] investigator for fifteen years. Since he had been stalking her for several months, she thought that if she called him for advice, that he would at least talk to her. I questioned her about this. I told her
6a that I didn't think it was good for her to get back in touch with him under any circumstances. Joanna did call [alleged victim] and he came and took her back to Westminster with him. He insisted that he drive her and that she leave her car. [Alleged victim] kept her at his house for the next few days. I talked to her on the phone several times during those days. Each time I made sure to ask, not only how she was doing, but whether she felt safe with him. She told me that he seemed genuine in wanting to help her, but that she did still have concerns. She said that he seemed to be pushing for a relationship and that she found his pressure difficult to deal with in the wake of the assault.
7a APPENDIX Ashley Arens, MSW, MSSP Client Services Director Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center Westminster Municipal Court 3030 Turnpike Dr. Westminster, CO 80030 (303) 658-2250 November 15, 2015 To whom it may concern, My name is Ashley Arens and I am the Client Services Director, non-attorney position, at Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, RMvlc. RMvlc is a Colorado nonprofit organization providing free legal assistance to victims of violent crimes to help enforce their rights under the Victims' Rights Act, VRA. Our office work state wide with victims to help them connect to needed resources, establish or re-establish communication with key players in their cases, understand the complexities of the legal systems and their associate rights, and, at times, directly represent them should there be VRA issues that have occurred already or may immi- nently occur. RMvlc has been working with Joanna Blauch since April 22, 2015. Our office provided social services consisting of local community resource connection, 8a legal education, and research into the outcome of her sexual assault case out of Denver County, [case number redacted]. During the course of our case research we spoke with a number of individuals who had worked with Joanna throughout the investigation of her case. We confirmed that she had submitted a statement about the crime to police on March 21, 2013 and that she had undergone a Sexual Assault Nurse Exam, SANE, that same day. It is also this office's understanding that Joanna has worked with multi- ple other victim serving agencies including MESA and SPAN. Our office recognizes and understands that there are many reasons that a reported crime will not be prosecuted. We submit that simply because a crime is not prosecuted does not meant that a crime did not occur. Joanna was courageous enough to come forward and report, and should not be person- ally penalized for the State's decision to not prosecute. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to reach out to myself or our office. Sincerely, [Signature] Ashley Arens, MSW, MSSP, Client Services Director 899 Logan Street, Suite 512, Denver, Colorado, 80203 Phone: 303.295.2001, Fax: 303.413.8301, www.rmvictim1aw.org 9a APPENDIX F M-E-S-A: Moving to End Sexual Assault Westminster Municipal Court 3030 Turnpike Drive Westminster, Colorado 80030 November 11, 2015 To Westminster Municipal Court Staff, I am Laia Jorba, Bilingual Counselor at Moving to End Sexual Assault (MESA). MESA is a nonprofit, community based program of Mental Health Part- ners serving the Colorado counties of Boulder and Broomfield. MESA's mission is to end the suffering in our community caused by sexual assault. We believe every person has the right to live free of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Through our client services we help sexual assault survivors and their loved ones. Through our prevention education programs we are working toward chang- ing tomorrow to ensure a world free of sexual assault. Since 1972, MESA has and continues to be the only rape crisis center serving Boulder and Broomfield counties. MESA serves over 1,000 indi- viduals annually through our 24-hour crisis and information hotline. Part of MESA's philosophy is as follows: We seek to provide support on the basis of the client's truth.
l0a We view all forms of sexual violence as a devastat- ing, regardless of whether the perpetrator is an intimate partner, family member, acquaintance or stranger. We acknowledge that the level of impact is defined by the survivor and that each individual holds the power and right to self-determine their own experience. We recognize that each survivor has their own journey in healing. We recognize that survivors express trauma in many different ways, including silence or fighting back for their rights. We support survivors in making their own choices while still making recommendations for safety, justice and healing. As requested by the client, I am writing to verify that Joanna Blauch has been a client of Moving to End Sexual Assault (MESA) since April 28th 2015. The client started to work with our case manager to help her connect to legal, mental health and medical services, advocating for her needs. Since July 1st 2015, the client has also been working with me as the counselor at MESA. The individual counseling program at MESA is short-term coun- seling consisting on 12 sessions, and symptom reduction, regulation of emotions and processing of somatic and psychological trauma. In the case of Joanna Blauch, the main treatment goal has been to support the client in her legal process as well as to develop skills to feel safer and stronger in her life. ha Although I did not complete a formal assessment, since the client's goal was mainly to receive support through her legal process, the client filled out a PCL-5 (PTSD Self-Assessment Checklist for the DSM-5), which is used to screen for PTSD, as well as we did a general intake, and I have been able to observe her functional levels during our regular counseling sessions. Client's total PCL-5 score on July 1st of 2015 was 36 points (the cutoff point for diagnosing PTSD is 38). Although the client scored between "little" (1) and "moderate" (with an average of 1.8 over 4) in all the categories (intru- sion, avoidance, negative alterations, increased arousal), the levels are not high enough to support a PTSD diagnosis. The symptoms indicate trauma without PTSD, which is also congruent with anxiety the client is going through as a result of her legal process and the residue from the sexual violence attack. Hence, therapy treatment has been focused on increasing the client's self-esteem, getting back her strength, and developing ongoing mechanisms for ongoing levels of stress. Joanna Blauch shows an overarching high level functionality and is able to cope and work with her symptoms in a way that is supportive and healthy. This is not an easy task considering the duration and intensity of the legal process.
12a Finally, the client has been offered information regarding the dynamics of sexual assault and sexual violence in addition to other available services and resources in the community that might be beneficial to her. If you have additional questions, please do not hesi- tate to contact us at (303) 443-0400. Sincerely, [Signature] Laia Jorba, MA, Bilingual Therapist Phone: 303 443 0400 (x101) Moving to End Sexual Assault 24-hour Hotline: 303 443 7300 [email protected] www.movingtoendsexualassault.org [Signature] Janine D'Anniballe, PhD, PSY, Director of MESA Phone: 303-443-0400 Moving to End Sexual Assault 24-hour Hotline: 303 4437300 www.movingtoendsexualassault.org
Tel: 303.443.0400 - Fax: 303.443.0187 - 2336
Canyon, #103, Boulder, CO 80302 - www.MovingToEndSexualAssault.org
13a APPENDIX G safehouse progressive alliance for nonviolence www.safehousealliance.org August 28, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: This letter serves to verify that Joanna Blauch is a client of Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence (SPAN). Ms. Blauch has accessed services at the organization since March 2015. Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence is a nonprofit, community-based organization providing emergency shelter, outreach counseling services, advocacy, and ongoing support to adults and children who have been impacted by intimate partner violence. The services Ms. Blauch accessed focuses on immediate issues related to domestic violence, intervention, and counseling. She has been offered information regarding the dynamics of domestic violence, and available services and resources. She is eligible to receive ongoing advocacy services through SPAN to ensure appropriate and effective responses from collaborative agencies to address her needs.
14a We hope you will consider this information when deciding the merits of Ms. Blauch's case. Through on going safety planning and protection through the legal system and the community, it is our hope that we can all work together to help keep Ms. Blauch safe. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 449- 8623. Sincerely, [Signature] Ashley Salamanca Bilingual Outreach Counselor SAFEHOUSE PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE FOR NONVIOLENCE 835 North St. I Boulder, CO 80304 1 Admin 303.449.8623 I Tr-City 303.673.9000 I Crisis 303.444.2424 I Fax 303.449.0169
15a