SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

FILED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE
THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1300 Broadway, Suite 250 March 15, 2024
Denver, Colorado 80203

Complainant: Presiding Disciplinary Judge

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Colorado Supreme Court

Respondent: ▲COURT USE ONLY▲

ROBERT ALAN WEINER
Case Number: 24PDJ013

Andrew D. Ringel, #24762

Andrew P. Reitman, #42356
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80202
Tel: (303) 628-3300
Fax: (303) 628-3368
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Respondent

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Respondent Robert Alan Weiner, by and through his counsel, Andrew D. Ringel, Esq.

and Andrew P. Reitman, Esq., hereby respectfully submits this Answer to Complaint, as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. Respondent admits he has taken and subscribed the oath of admission and was

admitted to the bar of the State of Colorado on July 1, 1992. Respondent admits he is registered

as a member of the bar of the State of Colorado and his registration number is 21572.
 2. Respondent admits the Colorado Supreme Court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction over this matter. Respondent denies the Complaint states any basis for any discipline

against Respondent. Respondent admits his registered business address is 1001 Seventeenth

Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

3. Respondent admits he served in the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office from

2001 until 2021. Respondent admits he was a Deputy District Attorney (2001-2004), a Chief

Deputy District Attorney (2004-2017), and a Senior Chief Deputy District Attorney (2017-2021)

in the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office. Respondent admits the First Judicial District

Attorney has jurisdiction over Jefferson and Gilpin Counties.

4. Respondent admits he was retained to serve as a Special Deputy District Attorney

in November 2021 by the Eleventh Judicial District Attorney’s Office. Respondent did not

participate in any investigation following Suzanne Morphew’s disappearance and murder on

May 25, 2020, any search warrants prepared, served or responded to during the investigation,

any pre-filing decisions made by the District Attorney, the decision to file an Affidavit for Arrest

Warrant, all the discovery related issues, or any of the other activities related to the investigation

or prosecution occurring prior to November 2021. As a result, Respondent lacks sufficient

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in

paragraph 4 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

5. Respondent admits the murder of Ms. Morphew and the prosecution of Barry

Morphew received substantial and sustained press, media and public attention. Respondent

admits upon information and belief members of the general public participated in searches for

2
the body of Ms. Morphew. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the

truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

6. Respondent admits Linda Stanley was elected as the District Attorney for the

Eleventh Judicial District in November 2020 and was sworn into office in January 2021.

7. Respondent admits on May 5, 2021, an Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant

completed by Commander Alex Walker, Chief Investigator of the District Attorney’s Office

seeking an arrest warrant for Mr. Morphew for the murder of Ms. Morphew was filed with the

District Court. Respondent states the Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant in its entirety

speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint inconsistent

therewith. Respondent states he was not involved in the investigation, drafting, or decision to

file the Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

8. Respondent admits the District Court found probable cause to arrest Mr.

Morphew for the murder of Ms. Morphew. Respondent states the Order finding probable cause

issued by the District Court in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in

paragraph 8 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent states he was not involved in

the investigation, drafting or decision to file the Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant or

obtaining the Order finding probable cause issued by the District Court. Respondent denies the

remaining allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9. Respondent admits a Complaint and Information was filed on May 18, 2021, by

the District Attorney against Mr. Morphew charging him with the murder of Ms. Morphew and

other crimes. Respondent states the Complaint and Information in its entirety speaks for itself.

3
Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent states he was not involved in the investigation, drafting or decision to file the

Complaint and Information. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 of the

Complaint.

10. Respondent admits he was retained to serve as a Special Deputy District Attorney

in November 2021 and worked as one member of the prosecution team involved in the

prosecution of Mr. Morphew for the murder of Ms. Morphew. Respondent denies the remaining

allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Respondent admits he became involved in the prosecution long after it was

initiated. Prior to his involvement, the District Attorney’s Office had produced discovery to

counsel for Mr. Morphew on an ongoing basis. The investigation into the murder of Ms.

Morphew was extensive and involved a variety of different law enforcement agencies.

Representatives of the Chaffee County Sheriff, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, and District Attorney Investigators were all involved in gathering

information, writing reports, and communicating with each other and prosecutors during the

investigation. Respondent did not have any involvement in anything related to the prosecution,

including all discovery issues, until he joined the prosecution in November 2021. Respondent

also was not personally involved in the discovery production or related issues after he joined the

prosecution in November 2021. Respondent did not have access to the discovery which was

maintained on the Action database which was not accessible to him as someone not directly

working in the District Attorney’s Office. Respondent had no access to the Action database until

March 2022 when a technological solution was finally obtained to allow him access to the

4
database containing discovery. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 11 of

the Complaint.

12. Respondent admits he was generally aware of motions being filed by counsel for

Mr. Morphew related to discovery issues and Orders related to discovery issues being issued by

the District Court. Respondent was not personally involved in the discovery production or

related issues after he joined the prosecution in November 2021. Respondent did not have access

to the discovery which was maintained on the Action database which was not accessible to him

as someone not directly working in the District Attorney’s Office. Respondent had no access to

the Action database until March 2022 when a technological solution was finally obtained to

allow him access to the database containing discovery. Respondent denies the remaining

allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Respondent admits he was generally aware of Orders related to discovery issues

being issued by the District Court. Respondent states the Order of the District Court dated June

3, 2021, in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of the

Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent did not have any involvement in anything related

to the prosecution, including all discovery issues, until he joined the prosecution in November

2021. Respondent also was not personally involved in the discovery production or related issues

after he joined the prosecution in November 2021. Respondent did not have access to the

discovery which was maintained on the Action database which was not accessible to him as

someone not directly working in the District Attorney’s Office. Respondent had no access to the

Action database until March 2022 when a technological solution was finally obtained to allow

5
him access to the database containing discovery. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

14. Respondent admits Deputy District Attorney Mark Hurlbert was assigned to work

on the prosecution of Mr. Morphew by the District Attorney. Respondent lacks sufficient

knowledge or information to form a belief as to when Mr. Hurlbert was assigned to the

prosecution. Respondent states Mr. Hurlbert was already assigned to and working on the

prosecution at the time he joined the prosecution in November 2021. Respondent denies the

remaining allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

15. Respondent admits he was generally aware of Orders related to discovery issues

being issued by the District Court. Respondent states the Order of the District Court dated July

22, 2021, in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of

the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent did not have any involvement in anything

related to the prosecution, including all discovery issues, until he joined the prosecution in

November 2021. Respondent also was not personally involved in the discovery production or

related issues after he joined the prosecution in November 2021. Respondent did not have access

to the discovery which was maintained on the Action database which was not accessible to him

as someone not directly working in the District Attorney’s Office. Respondent had no access to

the Action database until March 2022 when a technological solution was finally obtained to

allow him access to the database containing discovery. Respondent denies the remaining

allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. Respondent admits Dan Edwards was assigned to work on the prosecution of Mr.

Morphew by the District Attorney. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

6
form a belief as to when Mr. Edwards was assigned to the prosecution. Respondent states Mr.

Edwards was already assigned to and working on the prosecution at the time he joined the

prosecution in November 2021. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 16 of

the Complaint.

17. Respondent admits a Case Management Order was entered by the District Court

on October 29, 2021. Respondent states the Case Management Order in its entirety speaks for

itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint inconsistent

therewith. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

18. Respondent admits upon his entry of appearance in the criminal case against Mr.

Morphew he could generally access the all the filings with the District Court and Orders issued

by the District Court. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 18 of the

Complaint.

19. Respondent admits the Case Management Order established deadlines for expert

disclosures for the prosecution of February 14, 2022, for initial expert disclosures and March 21,

2022, for supplemental expert disclosures. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

20. Respondent admits the Case Management Order established deadlines for expert

disclosures for Mr. Morphew of March 20, 2022. Respondent denies the remaining allegations

in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. Respondent states the Case Management Order in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent admits the quoted material in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, without the alteration,

7
appears in the Case Management Order. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

Respondent denies the allegations and characterizations in the subheading prior to

paragraph 22 of the Complaint.

22. Respondent admits he only had limited involvement in obtaining experts for the

prosecution and providing expert reports and disclosures for those experts. The prosecution

effort to obtain and disclose experts started long before Respondent joined the prosecution.

Respondent had limited participation concerning experts. Respondent was asked to work on

obtaining expert related materials for two experts—Blake McConnell and Sherri Vanino. Other

than obtaining expert related materials for these two experts, Respondent was not involved in the

expert disclosures. Respondent admits expert testimony was important to the prosecution of Mr.

Morphew on some issues. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 22 of the

Complaint.

23. Respondent admits he was generally aware of the deadlines for the prosecution’s

disclosure of experts. Respondent admits he only had limited involvement in obtaining experts

for the prosecution and providing expert reports and disclosures for those experts. The

prosecution effort to obtain and disclose experts started long before Respondent joined the

prosecution. Respondent had limited participation concerning experts. Respondent was asked to

work on obtaining expert related materials for two experts. Other than obtaining expert related

materials for these two experts, Respondent was not involved in the expert disclosures.

Respondent admits expert testimony was important to the prosecution of Mr. Morphew on some

issues. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

8
 24. Respondent admits upon information and belief Mr. Edwards drafted the initial

expert disclosures. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint and therefore denies

same.

25. Respondent admits upon information and belief Mr. Edwards sent emails

concerning the initial expert disclosures. Respondent states all the emails between Mr. Edwards

and other members of the prosecution team concerning expert disclosures in their entirety speak

for themselves. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint inconsistent

therewith. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.

26. Respondent admits Mr. Edwards filed the initial expert disclosures. Respondent

states the initial expert disclosures as filed with the District Court by Mr. Edwards in their

entirety speak for themselves. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 26 of the

Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 26

of the Complaint.

27. Respondent states all the emails between Mr. Edwards and other members of the

prosecution team concerning expert disclosures in their entirety speak for themselves.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28. Respondent admits he only had limited involvement in obtaining experts for the

prosecution and providing expert reports and disclosures for those experts. The prosecution

effort to obtain and disclose experts started long before Respondent joined the prosecution.

Respondent had limited participation concerning experts. Respondent was asked to work on

9
obtaining expert related materials for two experts. Other than obtaining expert related materials

for these two experts, Respondent was not involved in the expert disclosures. Respondent denies

the remaining allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

29. Respondent states any email from Mr. Edwards dated February 17, 2022,

concerning the filing of a bill of particulars in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies

the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent denies he

had any personal responsibility for preparing or filing any bill of particulars with the District

Court. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.

30. Respondent states any email from Mr. Edwards dated February 17, 2022,

concerning the filing of a bill of particulars in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies

the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent denies he

had any personal responsibility for preparing or filing any bill of particulars with the District

Court. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31. Respondent states the record before the District Court of the February 24, 2022,

hearing in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 31 of the

Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent states any statement made by the Respondent

during the February 24, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the

allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent denies the

remaining allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

32. Respondent states any Order issued by the District Court during the February 24,

2022, hearing or subsequent to the hearing in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the

10
allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent denies the

remaining allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

33. Respondent admits Mr. Edwards left the prosecution team and filed his notice of

withdrawal from the criminal case. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

form a belief as to the date the notice of withdrawal was filed. Respondent denies the remaining

allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

34. Respondent admits P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses

was filed with the District Court. Respondent states P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of

Expert Witnesses in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph

34 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent states he was not primarily responsible

for the preparation and filing of P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

35. Respondent admits P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses

was filed with the District Court. Respondent states P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of

Expert Witnesses in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph

35 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent states he was not primarily responsible

for the preparation and filing of P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

36. Respondent admits Mr. Morphew’s Supplemental Motion to Strike Witnesses

Proffered as Experts and Motion to Strike was filed with the District Court. Respondent states

this filing in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 36 of

the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent states he was not primarily responsible for the

11
preparation and filing of P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

37. Respondent admits Mr. Morphew’s Supplement to Motion to Strike Proposed

Expert Witnesses was filed with the District Court. Respondent states this filing in its entirety

speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint

inconsistent therewith. Respondent states he was not primarily responsible for the preparation

and filing of P-44 People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses. Respondent denies

the remaining allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.

38. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

39. Respondent admits the prosecution’s Good Faith Witness List and Notice of

Endorsement of Witness was filed with the District Court. Respondent states he was not

personally responsible for the preparation and filing of these filings with the District Court.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.

40. Respondent admits Mr. Morphew’s Supplement to Motion or Discovery

Sanctions was filed with the District Court. Respondent states this filing in its entirety speaks for

itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint inconsistent

therewith. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint.

41. Respondent admits the prosecution filed a response to Mr. Morphew’s Motion to

Strike with the District Court. Respondent states he was not personally responsible for this filing

with the District Court. Respondent states this filing in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent

12
denies the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

42. Respondent admits a hearing was held on March 10, 2022, before the District

Court. Respondent states he was not present at this hearing before the District Court.

Respondent states the record before the District Court of the March 10, 2022, hearing in its

entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint

inconsistent therewith. Respondent states any Order issued by the District Court during the

March 10, 2022, hearing or subsequent to the hearing in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent

denies the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

43. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Doug Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence . Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent states the

record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

44. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence . Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent states the

13
record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations in paragraph 44 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

45. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent states the

record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

46. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent states the

record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

47. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

14
disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent is without

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations

in paragraph 47 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

48. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent states the

record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

49. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent denies he

was involved with or responsible for any expert report or disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent

states the record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks

for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Complaint inconsistent

therewith. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 49 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

15
 50. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent states the

record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent denies he was involved with or responsible for any expert report or disclosure for

Mr. Spence. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint.

51. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent states the

record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 51 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent denies he was involved with or responsible for any expert report or disclosure for

Mr. Spence. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

52. Respondent states he was not personally involved in the preparation of any expert

report or disclosure for Mr. Spence and was not asked to be responsible for any expert report or

disclosure for Mr. Spence. Respondent states he was not involved in any preparations for the

March 30, 2022, hearing before the District Court related to Mr. Spence. Respondent denies he

was involved with or responsible for any expert report or disclosure for Mr. Spence.

Respondent states the record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022, hearing in its

16
entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint

inconsistent therewith. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint and therefore

denies same.

53. Respondent states the record before the District Court of the March 30, 2022,

hearing in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 53 of the

Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent states any Order issued by the District Court

during the March 30, 2022, hearing or subsequent to the hearing in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 53 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 53 of the Complaint.

54. Respondent states the April 8, 2022, Order issued by the District Court in its

entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 54 of the Complaint

inconsistent therewith. Respondent did not have any involvement in anything related to the

prosecution, including all discovery issues, until he joined the prosecution in November 2021.

Respondent also was not personally involved in the discovery production or related issues after

he joined the prosecution in November 2021. Respondent did not have access to the discovery

which was maintained on the Action database which was not accessible to him as someone not

directly working in the District Attorney’s Office. Respondent had no access to the Action

database until March 2022 when a technological solution was finally obtained to allow him

access to the database containing discovery. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

17
 55. Respondent states the April 8, 2022, Order issued by the District Court in its

entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 55 of the Complaint

inconsistent therewith. Respondent admits he only had limited involvement in obtaining experts

for the prosecution and providing expert reports and disclosures for those experts. The

prosecution effort to obtain and disclose experts started long before Respondent joined the

prosecution. Respondent had limited participation concerning experts. Respondent was asked to

work on obtaining expert related materials for two experts. Other than obtaining expert related

materials for these two experts, Respondent was not involved in the expert disclosures.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 55 of the Complaint.

56. Respondent states the April 8, 2022, Order issued by the District Court in its

entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 56 of the Complaint

inconsistent therewith. Respondent states the April 8, 2022, Order excluding experts issued by

the District Court did so on multiple grounds and not only based on alleged deficiencies in the

prosecution’s expert disclosures or as a sanction. Respondent admits he only had limited

involvement in obtaining experts for the prosecution and providing expert reports and disclosures

for those experts. The prosecution effort to obtain and disclose experts started long before

Respondent joined the prosecution. Respondent had limited participation concerning experts.

Respondent was asked to work on obtaining expert related materials for two experts. Other than

obtaining expert related materials for these two experts, Respondent was not involved in the

expert disclosures. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 56 of the

Complaint.

18
 Respondent denies the allegations and characterizations in the subheading prior to

paragraph 57 of the Complaint.

57. Respondent admits members of the prosecution team exchanged text messages

with each other in a group text. Respondent admits in March 2022 the group text of the

prosecutors included the District Attorney, Mr. Hurlbert, Grant Grosebauer and Respondent.

Respondent states the text messages exchanged between the prosecution team including all

attachments on March 12, 2022, in their entirety speak for themselves. Respondent denies the

allegations in paragraph 57 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent states the text

messages are only appropriately understood in their overall context. Respondent states on March

12, 2022, he was participating as counsel in a case being tried before the United States District

Court for the District of Colorado which occurred from March 7, 2022, through March 25, 2022,

and his focus was on that trial not on the prosecution of Mr. Morphew while the other trial was

occurring. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 57 of the Complaint.

58. Respondent states the text messages exchanged between the prosecution team

including all attachments on March 12, 2022, in their entirety speak for themselves.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 58 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent states the text messages are only appropriately understood in their overall context.

Respondent states on March 12, 2022, he was participating as counsel in a case being tried

before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado which occurred from March

7, 2022, through March 25, 2022, and his focus was on that trial not on the prosecution of Mr.

Morphew while the other trial was occurring. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph 58 of the Complaint.

19
 59. Respondent states the text messages exchanged between the prosecution team

including all attachments on March 12, 2022, in their entirety speak for themselves. Respondent

denies the allegations in paragraph 59 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent

states on March 12, 2022, he was participating as counsel in a case being tried before the United

States District Court for the District of Colorado which occurred from March 7, 2022, through

March 25, 2022, and his focus was on that trial not on the prosecution of Mr. Morphew while the

other trial was occurring. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 59 of the

Complaint.

60. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 60 of the Complaint.

61. Respondent admits that due to the possible issues an unresolved conflict of

interest could cause in the case, he believed looking into the issues raised by the petition from

Julez Wolf and potentially interviewing Iris Lama was appropriate. Respondent denies he

agreed with or was involved in the decision by the District Attorney as to who interviewed Ms.

Lama. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 61 of the Complaint.

62. Respondent admits during a telephone call he was having with Ms. Stanley she

asked him to join Commander Walker of the telephone call. After Ms. Stanley joined

Commander Walker to the telephone call she asked Commander Walker to interview Ms. Lama

and he declined to do so. Respondent denies at any time did he determine to investigate Judge

Lama. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 62 of the Complaint.

63. Respondent admits during a telephone call he was having with Ms. Stanley she

asked him to join Commander Walker of the telephone call. After Ms. Stanley joined

Commander Walker to the telephone call she asked Commander Walker to interview Ms. Lama

20
and he declined to do so. Respondent denies at any time did he determine to investigate Judge

Lama. Respondent states the Complaint mischaracterizes what actually occurred. Respondent

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 62 of the Complaint.

64. Respondent does not recall receiving an email on April 7, 2022, from Ms. Stanley

concerning an interview of Ms. Lama by Andrew Corey. Respondent states any email dated

April 7, 2022, from Ms. Stanley in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the

allegations in paragraph 64 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent denies the

remaining allegations in paragraph 64 of the Complaint.

65. Respondent does not recall receiving an email on April 7, 2022, from Ms. Stanley

concerning an interview of Ms. Lama by Mr. Corey. Respondent states any email dated April 7,

2022, from Ms. Stanley in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent denies the allegations in

paragraph 64 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent denies the remaining

allegations in paragraph 64 of the Complaint.

66. Respondent denies he met with Mr. Corey on April 9, 2022, or on any other date.

Respondent denies he communicated with Mr. Corey in any fashion related to any interview of

Ms. Lama conducted by Mr. Corey. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph

66 of the Complaint.

67. Respondent denies he met with Mr. Corey on April 9, 2022, or on any other date.

Respondent denies he communicated with Mr. Corey in any fashion related to any interview of

Ms. Lama conducted by Mr. Corey. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph

67 of the Complaint.

21
 68. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 68 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

69. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 69 of the Complaint and therefore denies same.

70. Respondent admits a motion to dismiss was filed on April 19, 2022, with the

District Court. Respondent states the motion to dismiss in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 70 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 70 of the Complaint.

71. Respondent admits the District Court issued an Order granting the motion to

dismiss. Respondent states the Order issued by the District Court in its entirety speaks for itself.

Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 71 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 71 of the Complaint.

CLAIM I
(A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness—Colo. RPC 1.3)

72. Respondent states Colo. RPC 1.3 in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent

denies the allegations in paragraph 72 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 72 of the Complaint.

73. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 73 of the Complaint.

74. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 74 of the Complaint.

75. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 75 of the Complaint.

76. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 76 of the Complaint.

77. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 77 of the Complaint.

78. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 78 of the Complaint.

22
 Respondent denies the allegations following the word “WHEREFORE” following

paragraph 78 of the Complaint and denies there is any basis for any of the relief sought in the

Complaint.

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))

79. Respondent states Colo. RPC 8.4(a) in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent

denies the allegations in paragraph 79 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 79 of the Complaint.

80. Respondent states Colo. RPC 8.4(d) in its entirety speaks for itself. Respondent

denies the allegations in paragraph 80 of the Complaint inconsistent therewith. Respondent

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 80 of the Complaint.

81. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 81 of the Complaint.

82. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 82 of the Complaint.

83. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 83 of the Complaint.

84. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 84 of the Complaint.

85. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 85 of the Complaint.

86. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 86 of the Complaint.

87. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 87 of the Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Respondent denies all the allegations following the word “WHREFORE” following

paragraph 87 of the Complaint. Respondent denies there is any basis for the relief requested in

23
the Complaint and denies there is any basis for any discipline or other action to be taken against

the Respondent as alleged or requested in the Complaint or otherwise.

GENERAL DENIAL

Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint not specifically

admitted in this Answer.

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted against

Respondent.

2. Respondent did not violate the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

3. The People cannot establish any violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional

Conduct by Respondent by the required burden of proof.

4. The claims alleged in the Complaint fail based on a lack of personal participation

by the Respondent.

5. The injuries to the prosecution of Barry Morphew as alleged in the Complaint

were not caused by any action or omission of Respondent.

6. Respondent did not act with the required intent necessary for the claims against

Respondent.

7. The People cannot establish the required causation necessary for the claims

against Respondent.

8. Respondent specifically reserves the right to amend his Answer to include

additional defenses and affirmative defenses and/or delete defenses and affirmative defenses

wich have become applicable or non-applicable upon conducting discovery in this matter.

24
 WHEREFORE, having answered the allegations in the Complaint, Respondent Robert

Alan Weiner moves for an Order dismissing all elements of all claims against him in complete

and total fashion with prejudice, awarding him his costs and attorney’s fees, and ordering such

other and further relief as deemed just and proper.

Dated this 15th day of March, 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Andrew D. Ringel_____________________

Andrew D. Ringel, #24762
Andrew P. Reitman, #42356
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 628-3300
[email protected]
[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

25
 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

I hereby certify on this 15th day of March, 2024, I filed the foregoing ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT by submitting it via email to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge via email to
[email protected] and served the foregoing on the following counsel via electronic mail:

Erin Robson Kristofco, Esq.

[email protected]

Jonathan Blasewitz, Esq.

[email protected]

__/s/ Nicole Marion__________

Nicole Marion, Legal Assistant
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.

26