The murder case against an Englewood man in a road-rage killing is valid and ethical despite a paralegal’s comments that prosecutors believe the man acted in self-defense and shouldn’t have been criminally charged, a prosecutor in the Denver District Attorney’s Office argued in a court filing Friday.
Defense attorneys are seeking to dismiss the first-degree murder charge against Nicholas Moodley, 32, over the comments. Moodley is charged with murder and menacing in the November 2023 killing of Shane Warn, 25, during a road-rage encounter at Park Avenue West and Blake Street in Denver, near Coors Field.
The paralegal, who worked in the Denver District Attorney’s Office, told one of Moodley’s friends that the prosecutors on the case believed they’d “got it wrong.” Prosecutors have an ethical obligation to pursue a criminal prosecution only if they believe they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
On Friday, Chief Deputy District Attorney Robert Russel wrote in a court filing that the prosecutors on the case disagree with the paralegal: They do not believe Moodley acted in self-defense. And they do believe there is enough evidence to continue the first-degree murder prosecution.
“The assigned prosecutors continue to believe that the charge is appropriate in light of the evidence,” he wrote.
Russel does not dispute the paralegal made the comments, but says the paralegal’s opinion is legally insignificant.
“The prosecutors’ opinion is a different matter,” he wrote. “Their opinion is critical, for they can go forward only if they believe that Moodley is guilty of the charged offenses and believe that their evidence is sufficient to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is exactly what the assigned prosecutors believe here.”
Doug Richards, Moodley’s attorney, said the prosecution’s six-page response is notable for what it lacked: It is not signed by any of the original prosecutors on the case and doesn’t include a sworn statement from the paralegal, or anyone else.
“The response as a whole has me suspicious, because it is so incomplete,” he said. “They’re just saying, ‘Believe us, and let’s move on.’ But that’s why we’ve asked for an evidentiary hearing, and I look forward to asking questions to get answers to things they don’t want to talk about right now.”
Matt Jablow, a spokesman for the DA’s office, declined to comment Friday.
Russel argues in Friday’s motion that debate and even internal disagreement within the DA’s office about the validity of charges is commonplace, to be expected and healthy.
“That sort of disagreement can be beneficial in achieving a just result; it certainly is not a sign of impropriety,” he wrote. “The only odd thing here is that a paralegal expressed his disagreement outside of the office. Moodley’s lawyers have tried to capitalize on that mistake, but there is no basis for relief.”
Moodley is scheduled to return to court Oct. 31 for a status conference. His jury trial is scheduled for early December.
Sign up to get crime news sent straight to your inbox each day.
Originally Published:
