Just under six weeks away, the Montezuma County Sheriff's election has taken on a bitter tone.
Supporters of write-in candidate Mike Steele have been conducting an email and social media campaign that attacks Republican candidate Steve Nowlin, accusing him of perjury and dishonesty in a 2008 case.
Steele, a business owner and former deputy in California, and Nowlin, a former Colorado State patrol investigator, are opponents in the Nov. 4 general election.
Steele and his supporters say that opinions given by three criminal defense attorneys during a 2008 motions hearing prove that Nowlin lacks the credibility to serve as sheriff.
Last month, Steele supporter Michael Gaddy circulated selected portions from the 249-page 2008 transcript to some 400 people via email. Pointing to select testimony from criminal defense attorneys in the six-year-old proceeding, Gaddy said the "damaging" court documents reveal that Nowlin was "dishonest."
"The people of this county are entitled to this information before they vote for any candidate for an office which requires the public trust," Gaddy wrote in an Aug. 20 email.
Gaddy also attacked The Cortez Journal, writing that the newspaper acted with "deliberate" fashion or "ineptitude" in investigating his charges against Nowlin.
Steele emailed the Journal, writing, "Bearing false witness in a court of law is a most egregious offense, especially so by a member of Law Enforcement. Exposing it should never be called a 'political attack.'"
Nowlin has not been legally charged or convicted of perjury.
"It is disconcerting to many that this information is in the public domain, yet The Cortez Journal has endorsed Mr. Nowlin for the office of sheriff without it seems even a cursory examination of his past reputation," Gaddy wrote.
(Reporters and news editors at The Journal do not write editorials or endorsements.)
The newspaper paid $124.50 to the 6th District Judicial Court in Durango to secure the official full court transcript in question on Sept. 3. During the near seven-hour motions hearing in La Plata County on Oct. 23, 2008, three criminal defense attorneys testifying for the defense said it was their opinion that Nowlin had fabricated evidence in unrelated cases and had a reputation for being dishonest.
The preeminent Black's Law Dictionary defines "opinion" in the laws of evidence as an inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from facts, some of which are known and others assumed, or drawn from facts which, though lending probability to the inference, do not evolve it by a process of absolutely necessary reasoning.
One criminal defense attorney who testified is now deceased. Another, who was appointed as a district court judge in 2013, declined to comment about the 2008 proceedings. The other defense attorney, who went on to serve as a district attorney, said he stood by his opinion.
The testimony was presented in the motions hearing in an attempt to dismiss racketeering charges against a suspect in an interstate drug/theft ring tossed out of court. It's unknown how the presiding judge or jury weighed the opinions, but the suspect was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 96 years in prison. A state appellate court subsequently upheld the jury decision and jail sentence.
tbaker@cortezjournal.com
More coverage
Steele's charge: 'False witness ...is a most egregious offense'
Nowlin's response: 'I have never perjured myself'
The case: Delving deeper into the court transcript
What it means: A defense attorney weighs in on 'opinions'
The investigation: Nowlin cleared by State Patrol
Stories on Page 6A
