FILED

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE March 19, 2024

PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1300 Broadway, Suite 250
Denver, Colorado 80203 Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Colorado Supreme Court
Complainant:
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Case Number: 24PDJ012
vs.

Respondent:

MARK HURLBERT, #24606

Attorneys for Respondent Mark Hurlbert:

Nancy L. Cohen, #11846
Cohen|Black Law LLC
1888 N. Sherman Street, Suite 770
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: 720-699-2322
Fax: 720.310.3166
E-mail: nancy@cohenblacklaw.com

ANSWER TO CITATION AND COMPLAINT

Respondent Mark Hurlbert (“Hurlbert”), by and through counsel, Cohen|Black Law, hereby
submits this Answer to the Citation and Complaint.

JURISDICTION

1. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. This Court has
jurisdiction in these proceedings.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1
 3. Hurlbert admits he is a contract Deputy District Attorney (“DDA”) for the 11th
Judicial District which includes Fremont, Chaffe, Park and Custer Counties. Hurlbert denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. Hurlbert admits he was a DDA for the 11th Judicial District in 2019 and 2020 and
admits he was then hired on a contractual basis to prosecute a multiple co-defendant prison case.
Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Hurlbert admits after Suzanne Morphew (“Morphew”) went missing in May 2020,
the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office and other law enforcement executed search warrants and
collected electronic data. Hurlbert is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.

6. Hurlbert admits that the Morphew case received publicity and interest from the
community. Hurlbert is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations
in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.

7. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

8. Upon information and belief, Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the
Complaint. Hurlbert affirmatively states he was not involved in the Morphew case at the time Mr.
Morphew was arrested.

9. Upon information and belief, Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the
Complaint.

10. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Hurlbert admits that he was not involved in the Morphew case initially and that he
was brought on as a contract DDA to focus on cold cases in the 11th Judicial District. Hurlbert
denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

12. Upon information and belief, Hurlbert admits that some of the discovery provided
to the defense by the District Attorneys’ Office in the 11th Judicial District was not Bates Labeled
and no lists of documents produced to the defense were prepared. Hurlbert is without sufficient
knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and
therefore, denies the same.

13. Upon information and belief, Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the
Complaint. Hurlbert affirmatively states he was not involved in the Morphew case at the time
defense moved to compel and moved for sanctions against the prosecution.

14. Hurlbert admits that Judge Murphy entered an order on June 3, 2021, and states that
the order speaks for itself. To the extent the excerpted language from the court’s June 3 order
misrepresents the order, or is incomplete, Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the

2
Complaint.

15. Hurlbert admits in late July 2021, Hurlbert was assigned to work on the Morphew
case by District Attorney Linda Stanley (“DA Stanley”).

16. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint as it relates to him
as he had not yet been assigned to the Morphew case. Upon information and belief, Hurlbert
admits that sometime in July 2020, the DA’s Office for the 11th Judicial District disclosed the
CODIS DNA Casework Match letter to the defense. Hurlbert is without sufficient information to
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies
the same.

17. Hurlbert denies he was part of the prosecution on July 22, 2021. Upon information
and belief, Hurlbert admits Judge Murphy entered an order on discovery after a hearing and states
the order speaks for itself. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint to the
extent the allegations are inconsistent with the order or the reference to the order is incomplete.

18. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint as he was either
not on the case or had just been assigned to the case and therefore was in the process of becoming
familiar with it. Hurlbert was not responsible for any case disclosures during the period referenced
in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

19. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

20. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

22. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.

23. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint as it relates to him
because Hurlbert was not yet assigned to the Morphew case. Hurlbert affirmatively states that the
defense had the CODIS DNA Casework Match letter as the defense cross-examined witnesses at
the preliminary hearing using the letter. Hurlbert affirmatively states that the defense knew about
the letter used, thus the letter was not prejudiced by their disclosure approximately 20 days before
the start of the preliminary hearing. See In the Matter of Attorney C, 47 P.3d 1167 (Colo. 2002)

24. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

25. Hurlbert admits that the testimony cited in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint speaks
for itself and is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.

26. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

27. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

3
 28. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

29. Hurlbert admits that Rule 16 Part I (a)(d)(3) is a rule of criminal procedure in
Colorado and denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint to the extent they are
inconsistent with or incomplete with the language of the rule.

30. Hurlbert admits that at least two experts would be needed in the Morphew case.
Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

32. At the time Dan Edwards (“Edwards”) drafted the expert disclosures, Hurlbert was
without sufficient information and knowledge of exactly what Edwards used to draft expert
disclosures, and therefore, Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

33. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint and affirmatively
states that, upon information and belief, drafts were sent to Deputy District Attorney Bob Weiner
(“DDA Weiner”) and DA Stanley.

34. Hurlbert admits that Edwards filed the expert disclosures on February 14, 2022, but
denies that the disclosures for the experts he was responsible for were inaccurate and incomplete.

35. Hurlbert is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations regarding
what Edwards knew or believed, and therefore, denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the
Complaint.

36. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

37. Hurlbert is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained
in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.

38. Hurlbert is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained
in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.

39. Hurlbert admits a hearing was held on February 24, 2022, and upon information
and belief admits that the prosecution offered to supplement the disclosures if the court believed
that was necessary. Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations to the extent statements made by
the prosecution is different than the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.

40. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.

41. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

42. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

43. Hurlbert admits that P-44, People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses,

4
did not have some reports, and therefore, denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 of the
Complaint.

44. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

45. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

46. Hurlbert admits that on March 3, 2022, the prosecution provided emails to the
defense. Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

47. Hurlbert admits that as the prosecution became aware of more witnesses who were
expected to testify at trial, it would file supplemental witness endorsements with the court. Those
endorsements were provided to the court without delay as the prosecution determined which
witnesses it intended to call. Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47 of the
Complaint.

48. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.

49. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.

50. Hurlbert admits that on March 10, 2022, the court issued a verbal order striking
several prosecution witnesses. Hurlbert is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
portion of the court’s order excerpted in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.

51. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

52. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint.

53. Upon information and belief, Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the
Complaint.

54. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

55. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.

56. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.

57. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint and admits he had
no prior knowledge of a report from Doug Spence.

58. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. Hurlbert admits
that when Grant Grosgebaurer asked Mr. Spence whether he had authored an expert report the
night before the Shreck hearing, Mr. Spence told Mr. Grosgebaurer that he had not authored any
report.

5
 59. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint and incorporates
his Answer to the allegations in Paragraph 58 herein.

60. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.

61. Hurlbert admits the Court excluded expert witness Spence based on the stipulation
of the People and denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint to the extent they are
inaccurate or incomplete.

62. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 62 to the extent it accurately restates
the court’s April 8, 2022 order. To the extent the excerpted language is inconsistent with the
court’s order, Hurlbert denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. Hurlbert
affirmatively states that much of the conduct the court refers to in that April 8 order occurred
before Hurlbert was a member of the prosecution team.

63. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 63 to the extent it accurately restates
the court’s April 8, 2022 order. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 63 are inconsistent with
the courts April 8 order, Hurlbert denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the
Complaint.

64. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint.

65. Hurlbert admits that the text messages stated in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint
speak for themselves.

66. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.

67. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.

68. Hurlbert admits that the text messages stated in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint
speak for themselves.

69. Hurlbert admits that he did not voice disapproval of DA Stanley’s plan to interview
Iris Diaz f/k/a/ Lama (“Diaz”). Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
69 of the Complaint.

70. Hurlbert admits DA Stanley contacted Commander Walker at the Chaffee County
Sheriff’s Office, and is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies the same.

71. Hurlbert is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained
in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies same.

72. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.

73. Hurlbert admits he had a conversation about interviewing Diaz with DA Stanley

6
and raised issues about any interview and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 73 of the
Complaint.

74. Hurlbert admits that the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint.

75. Hurlbert admits he did not, as a DDA hired on a contract basis, question strategic
decisions being made by DA Stanley, the elected District Attorney for the 11th Judicial District,
regarding interviewing Diaz. Hurlbert affirmatively states that he and DDA Weiner discussed
caution with DA Stanley before any interview was to occur. Hurlbert denies the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. To the extent the allegations imply this conversation
about the perimeters and other discussion did not take place, Hurlbert denies the allegations in
Paragraph 75 of the Complaint.

76. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint.

77. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint.

78. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint. Hurlbert denies
the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint to the extent they imply that the request
for dismissal of the Morphew case related to Iris Diaz interview.

79. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint.

CLAIM I
[A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness – Colo. RPC 1.3]

Hurlbert incorporates his responses to the allegations in Paragraph 1–79 as if fully set forth herein.

80. Hurlbert admits that Colo. RPC 1.3 is rule of professional conduct and denies the
allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint to the extent they are inconsistent with the language
of the rule.

81. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint.

82. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint.

83. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Complaint.

84. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint.

85. Hurlbert admits the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint.

86. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint.

7
 CLAIM II
[Attempt to Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the
Administration of Justice – Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and Colo. RPC 8.4(d)]

Hurlbert incorporates his responses to the allegations in Paragraph 1–86 as if fully set forth herein.

87. Hurlbert admits that Colo. RPC 8.4(a) is a rule of professional conduct and denies
the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Complaint to the extent they are inconsistent with the
language of the rule.

88. Hurlbert admits that Colo. RPC 8.4(d) is a rule of professional conduct and denies
the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Complaint to the extent they are inconsistent with the
language of the rule.

89. Hurlbert admits DA Stanley decided to use investigator Corey to interview Iris
Diaz, who is the ex-spouse of then Judge Lama, and admits he and DDA Weiner had
communications with DA Stanley about the parameters of a possible interview of Iris Diaz.
Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint.

90. Hurlbert admits that the investigation into Judge Lama was to determine whether
there was a basis to seek Judge Lama’s recusal. Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 90 of the Complaint.

91. Hurlbert admits that he was personally unaware of information that would support
Judge Lama’s recusal or disqualification and affirmatively states that DA Stanley indicated she
had information in support of a potential motion to recuse or disqualify and further admits that DA
Stanley did not disclose the information to Hurlbert. Hurlbert denies the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 91 of the Complaint.

92. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Complaint.

93. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Complaint.

94. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 94 of the Complaint.

95. Hurlbert denies the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Complaint.

SPECIAL DENIAL

Hurlbert denies all allegations not specifically admitted.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Complainant’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

8
 2. The right of the prosecution to conduct investigations of matters relating to the
prosecution of criminal cases is governed by C.R.S. § 16-2.5-101 et seq, and other Colorado
statutes. See also. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecutorial Investigations, Third
Edition © 2014, American Bar Association, including Standard 2.1 The Decision to Initiate or To
Continue An Investigation.

3. Allegations of judicial bias must be supported by evidence including affidavits in

criminal cases. Hurlbert did not engage in deception or lack good faith when discussing with DA
Stanley and DDA Weiner about whether evidence existed for a motion to recuse.

4. Hurlbert reserves the right to assert and establish other defenses based upon the
development of information, informal discovery, discovery and/or more complete and complying
notice of Complainant’s claims.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Hurlbert respectfully requests that the Presiding Disciplinary

Judge dismiss Complainant’s Complaint, enter judgment in Respondent’s favor and against
Complainant on all claims, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nancy L. Cohen

Nancy L. Cohen, #11846
Cohen|Black Law LLC
Attorneys for Respondent

9
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT’S ANSWER
TO CITATION AND COMPLAINT was filed and served electronically via email, this 19th
day of March, 2024, as follows:

Erin Robson Kristofoco

Johathan Blasewitz
Jessica E. Yates
e.kristofoco@csc.state.co.us
j.blazewitz@csd.state.us

Court Administrator
filings@pdj.state.co.us

/s/ Nancy L. Cohen

COHEN|BLACK LAW, LLC

10