Experts: Lacy letter to Ramsey could have lasting implications

ShareThis

BOULDER, Colo. -- Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to send a letter of exoneration and apology to JonBenet Ramsey's father was an unusual move that could complicate any future prosecution of the case, legal experts said.In her three-page letter to John Ramsey, Lacy wrote, "We do not consider your immediate family . . . to be under any suspicion." She also apologized for contributing to the "public perception that you might have been involved."Legal experts said Wednesday that sending such a letter -- or publicly exonerating any suspects in a crime -- isn't common, because prosecutors' actions often speak for themselves."I've never heard of it," said Bob Grant, a former Adams County, Colo. district attorney who consulted on the Ramsey case in past years. "Usually when prosecutors exonerate someone, they do it by charging someone else."Craig Silverman, a defense lawyer and former Denver prosecutor, called the move "extremely unusual." He said publicly exonerating anyone before a conviction is a risky endeavor -- especially in such a unique case.Silverman said Lacy's public exoneration was also surprising given a statement she made in 2006 following the dismissal of charges against John Mark Karr, who was arrested in the case nearly two years ago. "No one is really cleared of a homicide until there is a conviction in court beyond a reasonable doubt," she said then.The future of the case also likely will be affected by the letter, analysts said. If anyone were ever prosecuted in connection with the 6-year-old's death, the letter would make it harder for a suspect to mount a defense argument that the Ramseys were responsible for their daughter's brutal slaying.But it wouldn't eliminate that defense entirely, Grant said."As with any case, a defense would go through the course of the investigation, and if an outsider was on trial, they would point to the evidence of an inside job," he said.On the other hand, Grant said, "If (the Ramseys) are ever charged, it makes Mary Lacy defense witness No. 1."It's also not clear that Boulder police embrace Lacy's public exoneration.In a statement released by Chief Mark Beckner on Wednesday, he called the DNA that Lacy used as evidence to eliminate the Ramseys "a significant finding." But he didn't echo or acknowledge Lacy's opinion or issue a similar apology. He declined all further comment.But experts also said the letter -- and subsequent exoneration -- wouldn't prevent prosecutors from ever trying a member of the Ramsey family. If there were enough evidence to support bringing murder charges against them, Lacy's letter alone wouldn't be enough to raise reasonable doubt."Public announcements don't control the outcomes of a trial," said Trip DeMuth, a former Boulder prosecutor who worked on the Ramsey case. "I am not in the camp that believes that a public announcement of innocence makes it impossible to change your mind later."The timing of the letter in relation to the waning of Lacy's term as DA also raised questions Wednesday.The prosecutor's term ends Jan. 1, and the case, which was taken over by the district attorney's office in 2002, likely won't be wrapped by then. Lacy won't officially be involved after that date, so any positive or negative consequences from the letter would be out of her hands.That responsibility likely would fall to Stan Garnett, who is running unopposed for Lacy's position. Garnett said Wednesday he doesn't know any details of the case beyond what is publicly available and didn't want to analyze Lacy's decision."A DA must make careful and clear-eyed decisions based on actual evidence and what can be proved in court," Garnett said. "When I am DA, I will call them as I see them, and I know Mary Lacy does the same." (Contact Zak Brown of the Daily Camera in Boulder, Co., at brownz(at)dailycamer.com)