As of Wednesday, May 20, 33 cases had been dismissed relating to credibility issues involving former Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) Deputy Jermal Ball that surfaced earlier this month, according to Sixth Judicial District Attorney Sean Murray.
Archuleta County Sheriff Mike Le Roux noted that Ball is no longer employed with the ACSO as of May 14, but stated he could not comment further on the situation.
“We took the appropriate action and he is no longer employed with us,” Le Roux said.
“We first figured out there was an issue when, there’s a case where the defense attorney issued a subpoena duces tecum for records that were held by the Durango Police Department involving Jermal Ball,” Murray said. “That was the first time we heard about it, and that issued on May 4.”
He noted he wasn’t sure how the defense determined there was an issue there, but had obviously done an investigation into the officer.
In court, that defense attorney alleged issues relating to Ball making false statements while employed in Durango and relating a domestic violence diversion agreement that was not disclosed to Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
The Durango Police Department then submitted a credibility report to Colorado POST on May 6, citing Colorado Revised Statute 16-2.5-502 — “Been convicted of any crime involving dishonesty, been charged with any felony or any crime involving dishonesty, or violated any policy of the law enforcement agency regarding dishonesty.”
According to reporting by The Denver Post, Ball was pulled over for suspected drunk driving while serving as a trainee officer with the Durango Police Department, and a subsequent internal affairs investigation resulted in a breath test that showed a blood alcohol content of 0.157 — nearly twice the legal limit.
The Denver Post reports that, according to internal affairs records, the department fired Ball for lying about drinking and for having his weapon on him while drunk.
Murray explained his office’s tally of affected cases is 120 including active cases, cases that were dismissed and cases that are post-conviction.
He explained that when the district attorney’s office receives a Brady letter — named for the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland that covers the right of defense to examine all evidence that may be exculpatory — indicating there may be something affecting a witness’ credibility, the office generates a letter notifying defense attorneys and defendants that there’s potential material relevant to their case/conviction.
He added the office is reviewing all cases where Ball is involved to determine if the office feels the case is provable beyond a reasonable doubt without Ball’s involvement.
He indicated the cases date back about three years, to the beginning of Ball’s employment with the ACSO.
Murray indicated that many of the dismissed cases involve things like driving under the influence and where the justification for the stop or the arrest was based solely on Ball’s observations.
Murray noted some defendants who are post-conviction have a three-year window to challenge their conviction.
“We’re doing everything we can to, you know, preserve the integrity of law enforcement and our criminal cases to the best of our ability with the information we have,” Murray said.
randi@pagosasun.com
>