July 20, 2017

Colorado Court of Appeals: Consent Not Available as Affirmative Defense to Violation of Protection Order

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Hotsenpiller v. Hon. Bennet A. Morris on Thursday, July 13, 2017.

C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)—Affirmative Defense of Consent—C.R.S. § 18-1-505.

J.C. obtained a temporary civil protection order (CPO), issued on JDF 399, against her ex-boyfriend Hartsuff. The county court made the CPO permanent in 2015. Among other things, the CPO states that it does not expire and only the court can change it. It prohibits contact of any kind and includes a notice to the protected person that she cannot give the restrained person permission to change or ignore the order. The restrained person is similarly notified that if he violates the order because he believes the protected person has given permission, he is wrong and can be arrested and prosecuted.

J.C. called the police and stated Hartsuff was on her front porch threatening her. In addition, J.C. showed the responding officer text messages and logs of phone calls from Hartsuff over the previous two days. Hartsuff was charged with harassment and violation of a protection order, both as acts of domestic violence.

Hartsuff raised the affirmative defense of consent, which the trial court allowed. The district attorney sought judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), contending that the harm sought to be prevented by the CPO statute is broader than simply contact between the protected and restrained persons and includes preserving the integrity of a court order and preventing domestic violence. The district court found no abuse of discretion and remanded to proceed with trial. The district attorney appealed. The sole issue on appeal was whether the affirmative defense of consent as defined in C.R.S. § 18-1-505 is available to a defendant who is criminally charged with violating a CPO.

The court of appeals considered the entire statutory scheme relating to the offense of a violation of a protective order to give effect and meaning to all its parts. Under C.R.S. § 18-1-505, the defense of consent of the victim is not available to any crime unless “the consent negatives an element of the offense or precludes the infliction of the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense.” The court found the “harm or evil” clause ambiguous and unclear. It therefore examined the legislative history, consequences of a given construction, and goals of the relevant statutes. Following an extensive analysis, the court concluded it was error as a matter of law to allow the affirmative defense of consent for the crime of violation of a protection order.

The order was reversed and the case was remanded to the county court with instructions to preclude Hartsuff from asserting consent as an affirmative defense to the violation of a protection order charge.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Withdrawal of Charge by DHS Does Not Constitute Final, Appealable Order

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of C.S. on Thursday, July 13, 2017.

Dependency and Neglect—Expungement—Lack of Jurisdiction.

The Weld County Department of Human Services (Department) filed a motion with the juvenile court to dismiss a dependency and neglect petition involving C.S. Father agreed to the dismissal but requested expungement of administrative findings of child abuse made against him by the Department. The court dismissed the case and denied father’s request, finding that father could obtain due process through an administrative hearing.

On appeal, father argued that the juvenile court denied him a fundamentally fair proceeding when it dismissed the case without also ensuring the expungement of the administrative child abuse filing that led to the filing of the case. The court of appeals concluded that the juvenile court lacks authority to order expungement of child abuse and neglect records and reports, and the court’s order granting the parties’ voluntary dismissal of the petition is not final and appealable. The court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant Not Entitled to Bond in Probation Revocation Case

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Johnson on Thursday, July 13, 2017.

Setting Bond—Persons Charged with Felonies Awaiting Trial—Persons Who Plead Guilty to Felonies and Are Awaiting Trial.

While Johnson was serving probation in a criminal impersonation case and deferred judgment in a menacing case, he was charged with, among other things, felony murder and robbery. Johnson was arrested, jailed, and held without bond in the latter case pending his combined preliminary hearing and bond hearing. After Johnson’s arrest in the murder case, the prosecution filed motions to revoke his deferred judgment in the menacing case and his probation in the criminal impersonation case based on the offenses charged in the murder case. The revocation court issued an arrest warrant in the menacing and criminal impersonation cases because of allegations that he had not complied with the terms of his probation. The trial court set bond in the murder case. Later the revocation court held a hearing to determine whether it would grant Johnson’s request for bond in the menacing and criminal impersonation cases. The revocation court denied these requests, drawing a distinction between these cases and the pending murder case based on the fact that the murder case was preconviction and the other cases were postconviction.

On appeal, Johnson asserted that the revocation court was “constitutionally required” to set bond in the menacing case and the criminal impersonation case and abused its discretion when it refused to set bond, with the result that Johnson is being unconstitutionally held without bond. He asserted that the motions to revoke in the menacing case and the criminal impersonation case are “new charges” for which he has a right to bond because he has not yet been “convicted” of them. The court of appeals considered whether the same set of rules governs a court’s decision to set bond in two categories of cases: cases in which bond is set for persons who have been charged with felonies and are awaiting trial, and cases in which defendants have pleaded guilty to felonies, courts have sentenced them to probation or placed them on deferred judgments, and the prosecution then files motions to revoke the probation or deferred judgments. The court decided that the same set of rules does not apply because (1) defendants in the first category are presumed to be innocent, but defendants in the second category have admitted their guilt and are not therefore entitled to many of the fundamental rights that those in the first category enjoy. In addition, probation revocation and revocation of deferred judgment proceedings are focused on whether the sentences that courts originally imposed are still appropriate; and (2) Colorado’s constitution and the pertinent bond statutes recognize the separation between the two categories. In the first, the law requires courts to set bond for defendants who await trial, subject only to a few clearly delineated exceptions. In the second, the law gives discretion to set bond.

Here, the court concluded that Johnson’s criminal impersonation and menacing cases fell into the second category; the revocation court therefore had discretion to deny his request for bond in those cases; and the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his request for bond because the record supported its decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/19/2017

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Harris v. Cozza-Rhodes

Coburn v. Wilkinson

Pledger v. Russell

Robles v. United States

Jimenez v. Allbaugh

Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land v. United States

United States v. Lopez

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Previously Unresolved Issues Decided Against Defendant’s Position

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Jacobson on Thursday, July 13, 2017.

Statutory DUI Affirmative Defense Instruction Not Given Sua Sponte—C.R.S. § 42-4-1301(2)(a)—Jury Instruction—Jury Questions—Invited Error.

In 2014 COA 149, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction for failure to poll the jury about exposure to extraneous, prejudicial information. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the court of appeals. Before the supreme court’s mandate was issued, defendant requested that the court of appeals decide two unresolved issues, either of which could lead to reversal of the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding her guilty of vehicular homicide, driving under the influence (DUI), and other related charges arising from a collision between her truck and a taxi. The court of appeals granted the request.

Defendant first argued that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the DUI affirmative defense of having consumed alcohol between the time she stopped driving and when her blood alcohol testing (BAC) occurred. Defendant testified at trial that she was sober when the accident occurred at about 10:30 a.m., but 15 minutes later, she drank a Vitamin Water bottle that contained one-half 99 proof schnapps. Defendant was contacted by two police officers at 10:58 a.m. She later failed a roadside sobriety test and was taken to a hospital for blood draws. The prosecution presented expert evidence that defendant’s BAC would have been .274 at the time of the accident. Defense counsel did not request the trial court to instruct the jury on the DUI affirmative defense of having consumed alcohol between the time she stopped driving and when the testing occurred.

It was undisputed that there was sufficient evidence to warrant an instruction on the affirmative defense. The prosecution argued that by proving that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident, it necessarily disproved the affirmative defense that defendant did not become intoxicated until a later time. As the supreme court stated in Montoya v. People, 2017 CO 40, a defense that operates solely by negating elements of the crime is disproved by the proving of those elements. Accordingly, the court found no error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on the affirmative defense.

Defendant then argued, for the first time, that a jury instruction and the court’s response to a related jury question reduced the prosecution’s burden. The instruction in question explained that “the amount of alcohol in the Defendant’s blood at the time of the commission of the offense, or within a reasonable time thereafter, as shown by chemical analysis of the Defendant’s blood or breath, gives rise to the following [listing of statutory presumptions].” During deliberations, the jury asked whether this was at or around 10:30 a.m. (the time of the accident) or at any time thereafter (on or around the time she was stopped by the police at 10:58 a.m.). Following discussion with counsel, the court answered that it could be either or both, but that any decision must be unanimous.

Defense counsel did not object to the instruction and participated in the formulation of the answer to the jury question. The Attorney General thus argued that defendant invited any error. The court declined to address the invited error argument because defendant did not argue there was an incorrect statement of the law. Defendant’s argument that the instruction encouraged conviction based on her intoxication “a reasonable time after” the accident is directly contradicted by another instruction that required the prosecution to prove that defendant had been intoxicated when the accident occurred. In addition, defendant did not show how the jury could have found her heavily intoxicated at 10:58 a.m. but not 28 minutes earlier. Defendant also did not produce evidence to contradict the prosecution’s expert that chugging alcohol at 10:45 a.m. would not explain the results of the three later blood draws, given how the body metabolizes alcohol. Finally, prior cases hold that 30 minutes after an accident is not “more than a reasonable time” afterward. Consequently, the court declined to reconsider whether the prosecution disproved the affirmative defense.

The court interpreted defendant’s last argument as raising a temporal discrepancy between the charging document and the references to “a reasonable time after” in the jury instruction and court’s response to the question. Based on the extensive colloquy on both the instruction and the court’s answer to the jury question, in which defense counsel actively participated, the court concluded any error was invited.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Drug Dog Sniff for Marijuana Requires Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. McKnight on Thursday, July 13, 2017.

Marijuana—Dog Sniff Search—Probable Cause—Reasonable Suspicion—Suppression of Evidence—Amendment 64.

At defendant’s suppression hearing, Officer Gonzales testified that he saw a truck parked in an alley that then left the alley and eventually parked outside a house for about 15 minutes. The house had been the subject of a search roughly seven weeks earlier that turned up illegal drugs. When the truck drove off, Officer Gonzales followed it, saw it turn without signaling, and pulled it over. Defendant was driving the truck. The officer recognized defendant’s passenger from previous contacts with her, “including drug contacts” involving the use of methamphetamine. At Officer Gonzales’s request, Sergeant Folks came to the scene with his certified drug-detection dog, Kilo. Kilo alerted, the truck was searched, and the officers found a “glass pipe commonly used to smoke methamphetamine” that contained white residue. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in his truck, arguing that the police violated his constitutional rights by conducting a dog sniff search without reasonable suspicion and by otherwise searching his truck without probable cause. The court denied the suppression motion, the case proceeded to trial, and defendant was convicted of both counts.

On appeal, defendant contended that under the Colorado Constitution, the deployment of the drug dog was a search requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court of appeals first noted that Amendment 64 legalized possession for personal use of marijuana of one ounce or less by persons 21 or older. Therefore, under Colorado law, a drug dog’s alert can reveal, in addition to contraband, the presence of something in which a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy (i.e., the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana). Consequently, a dog sniff should be considered a “search” for purposed of article II, section 7 of the state constitution where the occupants of the vehicle are 21 years or older.

Defendant also argued that the dog’s alert, in combination with other relevant circumstances, did not give police reasonable suspicion to search his truck and thus the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. A warrantless search effected by a dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle must be supported by reasonable suspicion. Under the circumstances of this case, the police lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion, the dog sniff was invalid, and the methamphetamine recovered as a result should have been suppressed.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Laches is Available as Defense to Long-Overdue Maintenance Award

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Marriage of Kann on Thursday, July 13, 2017.

Post-Dissolution of Marriage—Laches as a Defense to Collection of Spousal Maintenance Arrearages and Interest—Implied Waiver and Estoppel.

A decree of dissolution of marriage between husband and wife was entered in 1989. Husband agreed to pay wife lifetime maintenance of no less than $1,200 per month. In the event of breach, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees. For the next 26 years, husband never paid maintenance and wife never asked him to do so.

In 2015, wife retained counsel and sought entry of judgment for $520,636.32—$289,200 in unpaid maintenance and $231,436.32 in interest. She also requested a maintenance modification if the court did not award her the full judgment. Husband raised the affirmative defenses of waiver, estoppel, and laches. He also requested that the court terminate his maintenance obligation if it awarded wife the full judgment. The trial court (1) concluded that husband was required to pay maintenance under the decree; (2) held that Colorado law does not recognize the laches defense; (3) found that husband had failed to meet his burden of proof on the waiver and estoppel defenses; and (4) enforced the full judgment against him. The court also decreased the maintenance going forward to $800 per month and awarded wife attorney fees as the prevailing party under the separation agreement.

On appeal, husband argued that he should have been able to raise laches as a defense. While a novel issue in Colorado, courts have addressed the issue as to child support and child support combined with maintenance. Based on these cases, the court of appeals concluded that laches is available as an affirmative defense when a party seeks maintenance arrearages as well as the interest on those arrearages. The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider the full scope of the laches defense on the existing record.

Husband also challenged the rejection of his implied waiver and estoppel defenses. The record supports the trial court’s rejection of husband’s waiver argument. As to estoppel, husband asserted that he proved all four elements. The trial court rejected this defense, finding that (1) husband understood his obligation to pay maintenance; (2) wife never told him that he did not have to pay; and (3) husband did not detrimentally rely on wife’s assertion that she would not collect maintenance. The court found no basis on which to disturb the trial court’s rejection of the estoppel defense.

Husband further argued that it was error to modify rather than terminate his maintenance obligation. The court could not resolve this issue because the propriety of the trial court’s order will depend whether it awards the wife none, part, or all of her request for maintenance arrearages plus interest.

The portions of the trial court’s order rejecting husband’s laches defense, awarding attorney fees to wife as the prevailing party, and modifying husband’s maintenance obligation were reversed. The case was remanded for the court to consider whether laches bars wife’s entitlement to maintenance interest or arrearages and, based on this determination, to then reconsider the maintenance and attorney fee awards as well as wife’s claim for appellate attorney fees. In all other respects the order was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/18/2017

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

United States v. Richardson

Vreeland v. Wren

United States v. Purify

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/17/2017

On Monday, July 17, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

Rusk v. Warner

Truby v. Denham

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Mens Rea Element of Child Sex-Trafficking Statute Satisfied Where Defendant Recklessly Disregarded Victim’s Underage Status

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Doung on Tuesday, February 14, 2017.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had to determine whether a statutory amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1591, relating to child sex-trafficking, altered the government’s burden in proving the requisite mens rea. The defendants, Tung Doung, William Baker, and Curtis Anthony were each charged with one count of child sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy to engage in child sex-trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1591 and 1594. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, on the basis that it did not allege the mens rea element of the child sex trafficking crime, and the district court granted the motion.

Under § 1591, the government can prove the mens rea element of child sex-trafficking pertaining to the age of a child in three ways: (1) by showing that the defendant knew the child was underage; (2) the defendant acted in reckless disregard of their age, or (3) the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim prior to engaging in a commercial sex transaction. In the superseding indictment, the government charged the defendants only with having a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim to prove the requisite mens rea.

To interpret the statute, the court began by looking at the plain language of § 1591, stating, “the plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole. After looking at the plain language of the statute, the court determined that § 1591 (c) (pertaining to the language adding reasonable observation as a mens rea standard), was not ambiguous, and provides the government a third option for proving a defendant’s mens rea.

Because the section was enacted by congress as a part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), the court next addressed the congressional intent behind the addition of § 1591. The court noted that Congress’ stated purpose behind the act was to, “combat trafficking in persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and involuntary servitude,” and that § 1591 was added to provide federal criminal penalties for engaging in such conduct. The court then stated that because Congress added subsection 1591(b) to lessen the government’s burden as to the mens rea required regarding a child’s age, the addition of a third subsection further lessening that burden is wholly consistent with the intent of the TVPA.

The defendants argued that if the court interprets § 1591(c) as giving the government a third avenue to prove mens rea, then the section would effectively relieve the government from having to prove actual knowledge or reckless disregard of a victim’s age. The court rejected the defendant’s argument, and stated that contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the government will still have to prove actual knowledge or reckless disregard in circumstances where the defendants did not have a reasonable opportunity to observe the child victim before engaging in the commercial sex transaction. Additionally, the court stated that the defendant’s preferred interpretation actually goes against the stated objective of the TVPA of lessening the government’s burden by restricting the government’s ability to show mens rea under the reckless disregard standard.

As to the conspiracy charge, the defendants argue that the courts interpretation of § 1591(c) does not resolve if the district court properly dismissed the conspiracy charge. Relying on the seventh circuit holding in United States v. Saldago, the defendants claim that they could not have conspired to commit the crime of child sex-trafficking without knowing that the child in question was actually a minor. The court rejected this claim as well, holding that because the government is alleging the defendants had reasonable opportunity to observe the victim, the indictment specifically charges that the defendants had knowledge of the victim’s age for the purpose of the conspiracy charge as well.

The court reversed the decision of the district court in dismissing both charges against the defendants, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Tenth Circuit: 18 U.S.C. § 3583 Allows Sentences Greater than One Year for Violations of Terms of Supervised Release

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Collins on Tuesday, February 14, 2017.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had to determine if the maximum allowable term of incarceration following a second violation of the terms of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) refers to the original crime or the violation of the terms of the supervised release. Howard Collins was originally convicted of a Class B felony for knowingly and intentionally distributing more than five grams of (in this case) crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii). After his initial period of incarceration, he was granted supervised release. After violating his supervised release once before, upon his second violation of the terms of his release, the court sentenced him to one-year re-incarceration under the belief that § 3583(e)(3) permitted a one-year maximum term.

Section 3583(e)(3) stipulates the maximum allowable period of re-incarceration where supervised release has been revoked is the length of the supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the supervised release. On appeal, the government asserted that the district court improperly read the statute to preclude a re-incarceration period over one year. The government argued that the language of the statute relating to the “offense that resulted in such term of supervised release” referred to the original offense for which Collins was convicted (which would allow for a three year maximum), not the violation of his supervised release. In interpreting the statute, the court noted that revocation of supervised release, while often leading to incarceration, is not in and of itself a crime and is only subject to a preponderance of the evidence standard. As incarceration for a criminal offense under a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt would be a violation of the Due Process Clause, the court reasoned that the “offense” referenced in the statute was the original offense for which Collins was charged.

Looking to the holding in the Supreme Court case of Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, the court stated that the interpretation of the term “offense” to be the original offense for which someone was convicted is applicable to the entirety of Title 18, (at issue here). At the outset, Collins argues that the court’s interpretation of the term original must, in his case, relate to his violation of the terms of supervised release because the phrase “resulted in” requires actual causation, and “but for” his first violation of supervised release he would no longer be on a term of supervised release to violate. The court rejects this contention, stating that Collins’ reading of the statute and the holding in Burrage v. United States to require actual and proximate cause, if adopted, would require the court to to over look the aforementioned due process issues. Furthermore, the court states that ‘but-for’ his original conviction, he could not have been sentenced to a term of supervised release upon either revocation.

In further opposition to the court’s interpretation, Collins supports his own interpretation by asserting that the statutory history of § 3583(e)(3) and (h), including its cross-reference to § 3553(a)(1) leads to an interpretation that the term ‘offense’ means violation of his supervised release. The court, again citing Kellogg to reject Collins’ interpretation, said that because the term ‘offense’ under Title 18 has been interpreted to mean the original offense for which he was convicted, the cross-reference to § 3553 (a)(1) would also carry that interpretation. In Collins’ final challenge to the court’s interpretation, he asserted that because prior to a 1994 amendment the statute referred to “the offense for which the person was convicted” (emphasis added), as opposed to the current iteration that replaced ‘convicted’ with ‘offense’, Congress specifically intended to include violations of the terms of statutory release. The court also rejected these arguments under Kellogg, stating that because Title 18 refers to crimes as the original ‘offense’, the term must be given the same meaning throughout the statutory scheme. Furthermore, the court added, the amendment worked to actually expand the sentencing court’s authority, and an interpretation that limited the court’s ability to sentence a term of imprisonment for revocation of supervised release would be inconsistent with that intention.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the sentencing order of one-year, and remanded the case with the instruction that the court vacate its revocation judgment and resentence Collins.

Tenth Circuit: Discretionary Function Exemption Applies to All Activities of Prosecutors

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Estate of James D. Redd, M.D. v. United States on Tuesday, February 14, 2017.

The facts of the case stemmed from the case of Estate of James D. Redd, M.D. v. Love, in which the estate of Dr. Redd alleged that Mr. Love, a special agent with the Bureau of Land Management, violated Dr. Redd’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when officers searched the Redds’ home as a part of an investigation that targeted persons in possession and trafficking in Native American artifacts that had been taken illegally from the Four Corners region of the United States. The day after agents searched the Redds’ property and arrested him, Dr. Redd committed suicide.

At the beginning of the trial of the lawsuit against Agent Love, the court dismissed all claims against Agent Love except one alleging excessive force. The court later dismissed the excessive force claim as well. In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit was evaluating one of the early claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) that had been dismissed by the district court in the first case: that the value of a “bird effigy pendant” was, as alleged by the estate, overstated in order to support a felony charge against Dr. Redd.

At the request of the parties to the case, the court decided the case on the briefs without oral argument. The court reviewed the claim de novo that the value of the pendant was inflated, and that prosecutors were aware of the inflation. The court stated, “determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” The court agreed with the district court’s finding that the allegation that a cooperating witness intentionally over-valued the pendant is implausible and not well pleaded. The court then noted that the district court was correct in stating that, “absent the implausible allegation of fraudulent valuation of the pendant, the discretionary function exception applies to all identified activities of the prosecutors barring the Estate’s FTCA claim.”

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all the Estate’s FTCA claims based on the discretionary-function exemption.