The Larry Inman case is scheduled to go to a federal trial on December 3.
Meanwhile, the recall Inman people say that they have enough signatures to move forward with the special election.
Chatfield is saying, among a host of other things, that he’s too busy to testify at the Inman trial. Bwahahaha. If only every witness could get away with saying they’re too busy and important to bother with their subpoena.
I’m not exactly sure what Chatfield is getting at with the legislative immunity argument. The general theory of legislative immunity is that the executive and judicial branches shouldn’t go around meddling in the legislative process. Legislators shouldn’t be hauled into court to answer questions about their votes.
However, the purpose and scope of the law is to protect legislators from harassment in the form of criminal prosecution for taking or failing to take a certain legislative action. Legislative immunity doesn’t protect criminal wrongdoing. The crime occurs when the legislator solicits a bribe, not when they vote on the matter. The United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 861 (2nd Cir.1982) case ruling specifically said that legislative immunity doesn’t apply to the act of soliciting a bribe. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 517 (1972) gives a more general review of the limits of legislative immunity. Here’s an article from the Colorado legislative services office that explains it. And if legislative immunity doesn’t apply to Larry Inman, it certainly doesn’t apply to Lee Chatfield. Chatfield ought to be setting a good example for the rest of us of allowing the judicial system to operate, but instead, he’s doing this. I don’t think a federal judge is going to be impressed.