Audio By Carbonatix
The next TV camera in a Denver courtroom may have to be wheeled in from the trashiest of the talk shows. Last week Denver sheriff’s deputy Karen Kirchberg stood accused of flourishing a weapon and threatening to “put a bullet” in a couple of other female co-workers following a love-triangle quarrel that began in a city jail court and continued in the shadow of police headquarters.
All in all, it’s been a bad couple of weeks for the sheriff’s department. First, a local station broadcast a video of deputies strong-arming a struggling inmate. Next, the department was embarrassed by media reports that deputies had mistakenly booked a female prostitute into the men’s quarters at the city jail.
The latest scandalous episode unfolded November 20 in Denver County Judge Larry Bohning’s courtroom, where uniformed deputies could be seen in the gallery, outside in the hallway, huddled in conference with the prosecuting attorneys and seated in the witness box. Virtually the only deputy in plainclothes was defendant Kirchberg, who’d chosen to wear a tasteful cranberry-colored suit and heels for the occasion. According to her friends, costuming would play an important part in the drama.
The alleged victim, deputy Starline “Star” Roberts, testified that she was working temporary duty at the courthouse July 18 when she got a phone call from Kirchberg, her former lover. It had been several months since the two had spoken, Roberts told the court, but she had broken her arm, and Kirchberg had called to ask about her health. That call, she said, was soon followed by a second, during which Kirchberg invited Roberts to stop by her post at the city jail’s courtroom when Roberts finished her shift.
“I went to Courtroom T, and [Kirchberg] was in a good mood,” Roberts said. “She said that she was happy, she was in a relationship and that things were going good for her.” The two spoke quietly for at least an hour in the back of the room while court was in session.
“After about an hour and a half,” Roberts testified, “she started asking questions about my life, and her demeanor changed. She got more tense and angry.” Roberts said that Kirchberg demanded to know about Roberts’s relationship with a third deputy, Kimberlee Shaw.
“She said, `Did you fuck that skinny bitch?'” Roberts told the court. “She said, `I can’t believe you did that.’ She said, `Kim didn’t even ask my permission.’ And she said, `I’m so furious right now, I could put a bullet in both of you.'” (Shaw would later testify that she, too, once had a relationship with Kirchberg.)
When the jail court took a recess, the two women took their discussion outside, to the breezeway between the jail and Denver Police headquarters. Once there, Roberts said, Kirchberg repeated her threat to shoot her, adding, “I’ll do it right here.” Kirchberg allegedly then put her hand on her gun and flipped off the holster snap. “I told her, `Karen, don’t do it. Don’t even go there,'” Roberts testified.
Roberts said the tableau was frozen until a fellow deputy stepped outside and told Kirchberg that court was back in session. Kirchberg then turned on her heels and re-entered the building.
Roberts went to Shaw’s home that same afternoon to warn Shaw of the alleged threats. And, she said, she reported her version of events to her captain the following day.
Kirchberg, however, has a different version. She told the court that although she had phoned Roberts the morning of the 18th, she never invited Roberts to come see her. “I didn’t want to be her friend,” Kirchberg testified. According to Kirchberg, when Roberts did show up, she told Kirchberg that she “just wanted to see how big my muscles were.”
“We discussed how she was and things like that, and she said she had a relationship with Officer Shaw, which I knew about. Everybody in the jail knew,” Kirchberg added. Roberts, she said, kept insisting that the two of them get together for lunch.
When they stepped outside, Kirchberg testified, Roberts told her, “I know you miss me as much as I miss you.” Kirchberg claimed that although she repeatedly rebuffed Roberts, Roberts would not leave until “I vowed to be her friend.” The stalemate ended, Kirchberg said, only when she was summoned to return to the courtroom from the breezeway.
That same afternoon, Kirchberg told a deputy/counselor that Roberts would not leave her alone. She asked the counselor to warn Roberts to stay away, a message that was conveyed to Roberts by phone the following morning. It was only after that, the defense contended, that Roberts, angered and humiliated by the warning, made a bogus report claiming that Kirchberg had threatened her.
Although Roberts told her supervisor from the beginning that she had no desire to press charges, the accusation took on a life of its own. Departmental procedures require that the matter be investigated internally, says Sheriff’s Captain Carlos Jackson, and because the allegations involved criminal behavior, the results of the investigation were turned over to the district attorney’s office.
“Initially,” Jackson says, “it was accepted for a felony filing. Felony menacing. But after further review, that was dropped, and it was referred to the city attorney [for prosecution].” So by the time the case got to court, Kirchberg was facing only municipal charges, very minor compared with what had been originally charged.
When the jury retired to deliberate, it had little more than a “she said-she said” scenario to work with. No one else had seen or heard a thing except for the defendant and the alleged victim. That led to not-so-quiet speculation among the deputies who waited for the verdict. “Karen’s going to win,” a female deputy said to a male cohort, “because she’s pretty and she’s wearing a skirt. And she has nice legs.”
Whether or not that was the real reason for its decision, the jury came back with a not-guilty verdict on both counts.
The acquittal means Kirchberg will not face any disciplinary action from within the department. Both she and Roberts will return to work at their regular assignments at the city jail. They will not be placed at separate posts.
“We will not keep them separated,” Jackson says. “We expect people to behave themselves and do their jobs. It’s not feasible or possible to separate employees who have disputes.”
Tune in for the next installment.
