11th Judicial District Attorney’s Office faces being disqualified from triple murder trial; Judge Swan deliberating on removing Jeff Lindsey from case

During a hearing on December 18, regarding the cover-up of Sergeant Pete Elliott’s violation of the court’s gag order (see story by clicking on link here), Elected District Attorney Jeff Lindsey did something so unprecedented that it briefly caught everyone in the courtroom off guard; he took the stand as a witness placing himself under oath in an attempt to defend his actions in the cover-up.

Lindsey took the stand after Tribune publisher Jordan Hedberg had testified about his investigation into the actions of Sergeant Elliott in May of 2025. Hedberg’s testimony summarized that he had emailed District Attorney Jeff Lindsey and Custer County Sheriff Rich Smith about Sergeant Elliott using Facebook accounts to libel a key witness in the Hanme Clark triple murder trial on May 8, 2025. Both Lindsey and Smith had read the email and responded, promising to investigate. At that time, Hedberg stated that he would hold off publishing any story about the incident until the Sheriff had completed an Internal Affairs investigation.

However, it soon became clear in June of 2025 that the District Attorney’s Office and the Custer County Sheriff’s Office had no intention of investigating Sergeant Elliott. In one hearing in particular in June, District Attorney Jeff Lindsey told the court that it was likely that Facebook comments about the triple murder trial were probably from people who did not live or work in the region. Lindsey knew at the time that his statements were not accurate, as he had acknowledged the Tribune’s investigation into these Facebook comments a month earlier, made by Sergeant Pete Elliott, along with Brian Harris (husband of Undersheriff Susan Barnes).

The Tribune continued to investigate, requesting copies of the promised Internal Affairs investigation into Sergeant Elliott in October. However, results from those requests showed that no investigation was ever conducted, and the entire affair had been covered up. The Tribune published that story in November of 2025.

Hanme Clark’s Defense Attorneys, Janene McCabe and Ian McDavid, argued that the information provided to the District Attorney and Sheriff by the Tribune in May was important information about the case and should have been given to them through mandatory evidence disclosure rules. Only after the Tribune’s story in November, six months later, did the District Attorney disclose the information to Clark’s defense team.

After Hedberg’s testimony, the District Attorney’s Office called elected District Attorney Jeff Lindsey to the stand in an unprecedented move. Lindsey was not present in the courtroom and was appearing virtually from Alamosa. In his testimony, Lindsey initially stated that he had computer issues and had never remembered reading Hedberg’s emails. His position was that he received many odd emails every week, and Hedberg’s had not registered in his memory as requiring reading or disclosure to the defense. He repeatedly stated that he never really read the Tribune’s emails at the time as they did not seem significant.

In the closing arguments, Deputy District Attorney Stacy Turner summarized the original email and investigation by the Tribune by stating, “Judge, this email is garbage, no offence to Mr. Hedberg.”

Ultimately, Judge Lauren Swan did not find the Tribune’s investigation or emails to be “garbage” and was clearly concerned during the December 30 hearing. Judge Swan stated that she was not convinced that Lindsey had not read the Tribune’s emails because of the slew of other emails and phone calls that showed both the Sheriff and Lindsey had acknowledged to Hedberg that the Tribune would wait for an investigation to be completed.

What was truly unprecedented was Lindsey’s taking the stand to challenge the Tribune’s investigation. On December 29, Clark’s defense team filed a motion to Disqualify the District Attorney from Trial Advocacy. The opening paragraph summarizes the issue now facing the court: “This case presents the rare but serious circumstance in which the prosecuting attorney has elected to step into the role of a sworn fact witness on contested issues directly bearing on the prosecution’s discovery obligations, witness credibility, and compliance with Brady/Giglio. Having done so, the District Attorney may not continue to serve as trial advocate without violating the advocate‑witness rule, compromising Mr. Clark’s right to a fair trial, and creating an appearance of impropriety that undermines confidence in the proceedings.

“Disqualification is not sought as a matter of strategy, but as a necessary remedial measure to protect the integrity of the trial and ensure fundamental fairness to the jury.”

Colorado law and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct of attorneys is clear about the issue, Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) provides that: “A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless…” In addition, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, “The Colorado Supreme Court has explained that the advocate–witness rule generally forbids counsel from maintaining dual roles as advocate and witness in the same matter before the same tribunal” because “[c]ombining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client People v. Honstein.”

The defense team concluded by asking the court to remove Lindsey and the entire 11th Judicial District Attorney’s Office for this violation. Judge Swan stated that this type of disqualification was extreme, and she needed to weigh the request carefully. The District Attorney’s office has not yet filed a response, but the Tribune will report on the issue when more information becomes available.

– Jordan Hedberg