On Wednesday, June 5, Christian Champagne, former district attorney for the 6th Judicial District, was found not to be in contempt of court involving the Christopher Maez homicide case.
On July 11, 2023, Maez’s defense counsel filed a motion for the court to issue a citation to hold Champagne in punitive contempt of court, alleging Champagne “violated an order from the Colorado Supreme Court in this case,” according to order issued by the court on July 14, 2023.
This came after it was discovered that the Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) had video recordings of Maez meeting with his defense team inside the Archuleta County jail.
Champagne initially filed a motion to reconsider the order regarding the citation for contempt of court; however, at an Aug. 4, 2023, hearing the court stated it intended to serve Champagne with the contempt of court citation.
The Colorado Supreme Court order issued on Feb. 28, 2023, states that the “Petitioner [Maez] is entitled to all video recordings - including audio-less recordings – of meetings between himself and his legal team conducted at the Archuleta County Jail. The Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office is required to disclose any and all such recordings to Petitioner within twenty-one days of this order.”
The order also states that if the petitioner intends to rely on the contents of the recordings as the basis of a motion for sanctions or disqualification, the petitioner must provide at least 28 days notice to the district court and to the people. The court would then determine what recordings, if any, should be disclosed to the people.
Maez was represented by John Baxter, a criminal defense attorney based out of Durango.
Baxter’s opening arguments claimed that Champagne was not to have possession of the hard drive containing the attorney-client video recordings from the Archuleta County jail, and that the ACSO was to provide the hard drive directly to Maez’s counsel.
Baxter also stated that his team offered to provide a privilege log of the recordings, even though the supreme court order does not instruct them to do so.
Champagne was represented by Jane Cox in the trial, an attorney based out of the Front Range.
In her opening arguments, Cox stated that Champagne understood the supreme court order and that he was only trying to assist the ACSO in facilitation of the hard drive.
She claimed that Champagne “went out of his way” to make sure that no one in the district attorney’s office was able to view the contents of the hard drive, as he was attempting to help the ACSO comply with the order.
Cox claimed that this was a “misdirected attempt to punish the district attorney.”
During his testimony, Champagne claimed that he was only trying to assist the ACSO in getting the video recording to Maez’s counsel, and that although the hard drive had been plugged into his computer, he did not, nor did anyone else at the district attorney’s office, view the videos on the hard drive.
Champagne claimed that he only looked at the file size of the hard drive in order to determine if his office would need to purchase a larger storage device than what it had on hand to make a copy of the original hard drive.
Champagne also explained that he had his assistant, George Daniels, retrieve the original hard drive to bring to his office to make a copy to provide Baxter’s team with.
Both Daniels and Champagne testified that they were with each other when the original hard drive was connected to Champagne’s computer and that once the file size was determined, the hard drive was removed and none of the contents were viewed.
During his testimony, Daniels stated that he would typically give evidence directly to the district attorney’s legal assistant, who at the time was Lillian Jameson, but that this was an unusual situation with the supreme court order.
Daniels also stated that after the copy was made, the original hard drive was placed in a secure evidence safe at the district attorney’s office.
Jameson also testified, stating that she is capable of determining file sizes herself and making copies accordingly.
She also stated that no one communicated to her what the file size of the original hard drive was.
During her testimony, Jameson indicated that after she made the copy, she left it at the front desk of the district attorney’s office for Baxter’s team to pick up, noting that it was not sealed with evidence tape and that it could have been possible for anyone working in the office to obtain or view the copy until Baxter’s team was able to pick up the copy a few days later.
Champagne claimed he wanted to protect the integrity of the hard drive, just as he would with any other piece of evidence and that it is not uncommon for Daniels to retrieve evidence from the ACSO.
According to a motion filed by Champagne on Jan. 2 for the court to reconsider its July 14, 2023, order to proceed with contempt citation, it states, “The [original] hard drive was supervised at all times prior to being locked in the safe.”
Also in the Jan. 2 motion, Champagne states that four things must be shown to prove punitive contempt. Those four things include: the existence of a lawful order of the court, the contemnor’s knowledge of the order, the contemnor’s ability to comply with the order and the contemnor’s willful refusal to comply with the order.
The same motion, filed by Champagne, goes on to state, “Because the Office of the District Attorney was not issued a specific order to do or not do any specific act, the Office of the District Attorney is not the direct subject of the Supreme Court order.”
Champagne, along with multiple ACSO employees and district attorney staff, testified that it would be unusual to provide evidence directly to the defense, but that the supreme court order was also unusual.
Sheriff Mike Le Roux testified that once the ACSO had the video recordings downloaded onto a hard drive from its camera company, he reached out to Champagne for assistance and direction on how to get the recordings to the defendant’s counsel.
He also explained that the ACSO was late in getting the recordings to the petitioner, past the 21 days allowed as stated in the supreme court order.
Champagne testified that Le Roux attempted to contact him multiple times for assistance and described the ACSO as acting “frantically” in trying to get the recordings to the petitioner.
Le Roux mentioned in his testimony that he had some concern about the situation, given that the ACSO had yet to provide the petitioner with the videos within 21 days, but never described his actions as being frantic.
Le Roux also claimed that he had consulted with the Archuleta County attorney Todd Weaver as to how the situation should be handled.
Le Roux indicated that Weaver did not express any concern about Daniels retrieving the hard drive to make a copy at the district attorney’s office.
Weaver did not testify during the court trial.
Archuleta County Detention Facility Commander Edward Williams also testified that it would be unusual for the jail to release evidence directly to the defense and that it is common for Daniels to retrieve evidence for the district attorney’s office.
Williams expressed that he was concerned about not being able to provide the recordings in time, but never described his actions being frantic.
Assisting Baxter in the trial was criminal defense attorney Ingrid Alt, also based out of Durango.
Alt led the closing arguments on behalf of Maez, stating that Champagne should be held in contempt for violating the supreme court order by directing Daniels to retrieve the hard drive and that it did not matter if Champagne actually looked at any of the contents because him being in possession of the hard drive was a “direct contradiction” to the order.
Alt also claimed that Champagne argued to the Colorado Supreme Court that he should be allowed a copy of the hard drive whether or not the petitioner planned to rely on its contents as evidence in the case.
Alt went on to claim that Champagne’s actions have instilled distrust in the legal system and that Maez could no longer trust the integrity of the legal system to give him a fair trial.
Alt asked for Champagne to be charged with contempt and be sentenced to appropriate jail time and fees.
In Cox’s closing arguments, she claimed that Champagne could not legally be held in contempt, given the supreme court order did not direct the district attorney to do, or not do, any specific act.
Cox stated that the account of the events and how the district attorney’s office obtained the hard drive and facilitated the evidence was being “mischaracterized” by Baxter and his team.
She stated that any wrongdoing of Champagne was done with good intentions and he was only trying to assist the ACSO in order to comply with the supreme court order.
Cox also claimed that the petitioner could not prove that Champagne willfully refused to comply with the order because he was not the direct subject and that the court cannot find someone in contempt for not doing something that was not specifically stated in the order.
Cox also stated that no matter the outcome of the trial, it had no benefit to Maez and that these claims of contempt were frivolous, a waste of time and resources and “borderline abuse of the legal process.”
Cox asked for the dismissal of the contempt citation and that Champagne’s court fees be charged against Maez.
Judge Deborah Eyler presided over the court trial, which began at approximately 8:30 a.m. Closing arguments from both sides concluded at approximately 1:50 p.m., with Eyler recessing the court until 2:30 p.m. to draft her ruling.
In her ruling, Eyler stated that the petitioner was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Champagne had viewed the contents of the hard drive and determined that Champagne’s testimony was credible.
However, Eyler also stated that the court had some concern about the copy of the original hard drive being left unsecured at the district attorney’s office.
She also noted that it would have been in Champagne’s best interest to have never been in possession of the original hard drive, though she could not “casually find contempt” in this case because there was no specific language in the supreme court order prohibiting Champagne from coming in contact with the hard drive.
Eyler added that this was not a frivolous concern on Maez’s part and that “what happened here could’ve gone very wrong.”
Eyler dismissed the contempt charge against Champagne, but denied Cox’s request for court fees to be charged against Maez.
Maez is currently facing first-degree homicide charges for his suspected involvement in the Aug. 6, 2019, death of Millie Mestas, aged 47 at the time of her death.
Due to the contempt citation issued against Champagne, on July 23, 2023, Champagne filed a motion to withdraw and recuse his entire office from the homicide case.
clayton@pagosasun.com
