Less than one week after the first anniversary marking the death of 10-month-old Edward Hayes, the first-degree murder case against his last known caretaker has been dismissed.
The order granting the motion to dismiss was filed Wednesday evening by Fremont County District Court Judge Kaitlin Turner.
William Jacobs, 22, was the last person to care for his live-in girlfriend’s baby who died after being discovered unresponsive in a Cañon City motel room where Jacobs lived with the baby and his mother, Brook Crawford, 21.
Judge mulls dismissing case against Cañon City man charged in baby’s death
Jacobs was arrested on a first-degree murder charge on May 21, 2023. Edward died May 23, 2023, at Children’s Hospital in Colorado Springs. The El Paso County Coroner’s final diagnosis of Edward’s cause of death was blunt-force head trauma.
During his initial interview with authorities, according to an arrest affidavit, Jacobs said he was changing the baby’s diaper when “he went stiff and began making gargling noises.”
During an interview, Jacobs admitted to biting Edward’s arm while playing with him and biting too hard, but he also told law enforcement that the baby sustained the bite mark from a dog.
Death of infant, who was found unresponsive at Cañon City motel, moves to jury trial
Jacobs also admitted to hitting Edward’s head on the bathroom door frame while he was trying to take him to throw up in the toilet.
The detective noted that Jacobs’ story “was continually changing throughout the interview.”
According to testimony during a December preliminary hearing, Edward’s head trauma was non-accidental based on the severity of the injuries and the pattern of the injuries.
Jacobs’ public defenders, Daniel Zettler and Jake Taufer filed a motion to dismiss the case based on alleged actions on behalf of 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley, including outrageous governmental conduct and a discovery violation.
At a July 12, 2023, setting conference, the magistrate court scheduled a preliminary hearing for Jacobs. Stanley appeared on behalf of the People in person at this setting conference, but that is the only time Stanley appeared in this case.
“KRDO reporter Sean Rice and his cameraman attended this setting conference and approached DA Stanley following the hearing to request an interview,” the motion to grant dismissal states. “DA Stanley agreed to an interview right after the setting conference, and Mr. Rice and the cameraman were escorted into the District Attorney’s Office inside the Fremont County Courthouse. Portions of this interview were first aired on news station KRDO on that same day, July 12, 2023.”
Stanley told the reporter regarding Jacobs, “Without the caring factor, without the love factor, then it’s, the (boy) is a pain in the (censored). … I mean I am going to be very blunt here,” she said. “He has zero investment in this, zero. He is watching (Edward) so he can get laid, that’s it. And to have a place to sleep. I’m sorry to be that blunt, but honest to God, that’s what going on.”
During a continued motion hearing for Jacobs on March 22, Taufer contended that Stanley’s comments were an attempt “to weaponize the press against Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Crawford.” Taufer stated that Stanley made the comments intentionally, willingly and knowingly. The intent of the interview, he said, was to sway public opinion and poison the jury pool.
A similar motion filed in August by Crawford’s attorney, Thom LeDoux, claims Stanley’s comments in that same televised interview were “highly prejudicial.”
Taufer said despite Stanley contending that she thought she was speaking “off the record” when she made the comments, she had a microphone clipped to her lapel and knew the camera was rolling.
“She invited KRDO into her office and sits right in front of the reporter,” he said. “She and Mr. Rice talk off camera first, then the camera is set up. She wasn’t ambushed. She sat in her office for an hour before she knowingly made these statements.”
Rice and his photographer submitted affidavits, under the penalty of purgery if they make a false statement, that they never heard Stanley request to speak off the record and never cut out footage of her making such a request.
Jacobs’ attorneys asked for the 29-minute raw interview footage during a Feb. 1 hearing, when Deputy District Attorney Wendy Owens said it hadn’t been placed into evidence and that Stanley was the only one in possession of it. Turner ordered the video to be released by Feb. 15.
Turner watched the video March 21. She said one part of the interview that wasn’t broadcast was Stanley lamenting that “Fremont County is against me, the sheriff is against me, judges are against me” and it’s not like that in the other counties.
Also during the interview, at one point, Stanley pointed out a speaking button in her office and told the KRDO reporter, “I can’t hit that button because we are being recorded,” Turner said. Stanley and the reporter went on to joke before Stanley hit the button, which produced a statement with “colorful” verbiage.
“That indicates to me she knew she was being recorded,” Turner said.
In the order to dismiss, Turner wrote that “Stanley knew or reasonably should have known that her on-the-record comments to reporter Rice about Mr. Jacobs and co-defendant Ms. Crawford would be disseminated by means of public communication and that they would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing these criminal proceedings.”
Turner wrote that Stanley’s comments were made while talking to a reporter, wearing a microphone, with a camera pointed directly at her, which camera was operated by a cameraman.
“Second, DA Stanley’s comments were imbued with a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of Mr. Jacobs,” the order states. “Her comments included her vituperative, sensational, and inflammatory opinions of Mr. Jacobs’ character, his credibility, his reputation, and his criminal record. Third, DA Stanley had notice that improper pretrial, extrajudicial statements would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a defendant’s rights to a fair trial.”
Turner wrote that in Crawford’s case, the Court could not find that there was any legitimate reason for Stanley to make the statements she made to Rice.
“Thus the Court infers and finds that those statements were made to specifically prejudice Mr. Jacobs and co-defendant Brook Crawford,” the order states. “To the extent that any statements were more specific to Ms. Crawford, they implicate and impact Mr. Jacobs. DA Stanley’s comments undermined the public’s respect for the judicial process. Because there is no legitimate purpose for making these statements, the Court finds the District Attorney’s actions to be shocking to the universal sense of justice and the standards and presumptions on which our criminal justice system.”
Stanley is currently facing an ethics complaint and potential disbarment based in part on her statements to KRDO. The case is set for a two-week hearing in June.
According to court records, in August 2023, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel initiated interim suspension proceedings against Stanley. Through counsel, she contested the request for interim suspension. In her interim suspension response, Stanley argued that she believed that her comments to KRDO were off the record. On Sept. 7 and 8, Presiding Disciplinary Judge Byron Large held an interim suspension hearing. After the hearing, he recommended that the request for interim suspension be granted. In a one-sentence order devoid of analysis, the Colorado Supreme Court denied the request for interim suspension.
Crawford’s motion to dismiss the charges against her, based on Stanley’s outrageous government conduct, was granted in April. That order is pending review before the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Charges dismissed against Cañon City mother whose baby died while in the care of boyfriend
Jacobs was released from jail on a personal recognizance bond on April 9. Before the bond hearing, Crawford submitted a handwritten letter to Turner stating that if she granted release on a PR bond, he would be able to stay with her at her home.
“William is a good person,” Crawford wrote. “He just needs the opportunity to show you and the community and he has so much potential that is being thrown away in jail. … I feel if you just give him the time and chance to show you, you would understand how great of a person he is and will be.”
When asked for comment on the ruling, Deputy District Attorney Wendy Owens in an email to the Daily Record said the Office of the District Attorney has no comment. Zettler also responded, stating it is the policy of Colorado Public Defender to not comment publicly on client representation.