Decision By Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Raises More Questions Than Answers In The IRP6 Case Regarding 200 Pages of Missing Transcript, Says Advocacy Group A Just Cause

Share Article

Advocacy group, A Just Cause, seeks broader federal investigation into operations of federal courts in Denver surrounding the handling of the IRP6 Case

Free The IRP6

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.― Voltaire

Advocacy group, A Just Cause announces today that it is asking the federal government to launch a full investigation into operations of the federal courts in Denver surrounding the handling of the IRP6 case in light of the decision handed down on Monday denying the IRP6 appeal (D.C. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14).

The IRP6 case concerns a Colorado-based company (IRP Solutions Corporation) that developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement. The IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and David A Banks) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire fraud. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

“A Just Cause raises questions regarding the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the district court’s conviction because, among other things, it appears that the court side stepped one of the most critical issues at hand, that being the Fifth Amendment violation and the over 200 pages of missing transcript that supports that argument," says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause.

The opinion by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals states, “Whether a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination has been violated is a legal question we review de novo” (Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14).

According to the Legal Information Institute, “De Novo is a Latin term meaning ‘from the new’. When a court hears a case de novo, it is deciding the issues without reference to the legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous court to hear the case. An appeals court hearing a case de novo may refer to the trial court’s record to determine the facts, but will but rule on the evidence and matters of law without giving deference to that court’s findings.” (Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School,

“On the issue of the Fifth Amendment violation, the opinion by the Tenth Circuit jumps to whether or not proper curative instructions were given to the jury following one of the IRP6’s testimony, rather than a ‘de novo’ review”, cites Thurman. “If the review was truly ‘de novo’ it would cover the situation from the beginning, addressing what was said by Judge Arguello to the IRP6 during the side bar conference. It is the 200 pages of transcript from the side bar that are not accounted for that are critical to a ‘de novo’ review of the claim of a Fifth Amendment violation," adds Thurman.

Court records show that Appellant Attorney for the IRP6, Gwendolyn Solomon, filed an emergency Motion for Bond Pending Appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, July 29th (Emergency Motion for Bond Pending Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court, D.C. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Appellate Case: 11-1492). “It’s ironic that the Tenth Circuit would hand down a decision in less than week after a motion was hand-delivered to Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor (Circuit Justice for the Tenth Circuit)”, says Gwendolyn Solomon, IRP6 Appellant Attorney. “These men have been incarcerated for over two years and now within a week of filing a motion with the Supreme Court, what appears to be a cut and paste rush opinion is published, which makes this decision questionable. The opinion even reads strange," adds Solomon. “We are moving forward and exploring all legal avenues to seek justice for the IRP6”, concludes Solomon.

Court records for the IRP6 case show that the appellate court three-judge panel for the IRP6 case included the Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock, Judge Harris L. Hartz, and Judge Jerome A. Holmes (Judge Holmes wrote the opinion). (D.C. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Appellate Case 11-1492). A Just Cause still questions why the court documents in this case have not included a signature block for the judges. “We became curious about the handling of motions in this case when we noticed that there was no judge’s signature on the replies from the court”, says Ethel Lopez, A Just Cause. “Following the most recent incident of the bond pending appeal not being signed by a judge, one of Judge Holmes’ assistants informed me that all judges on the panel had to review and sign off on those types of motions. So for this opinion lacking a signature block, although Judge Holmes shows as the writing Judge, only adds to our curiosity of the events that have occurred during this case," concludes Lopez.

For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to

Related press releases:!press-release/c21pq

Petition for release of 200 pages of transcript:

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

AJC Communications Director
A Just Cause
+1 7192715854
Email >

A Just Cause Communications
A Just Cause
855-529-4252 700
Email >
Visit website