Triple Murder Motions Hearings,
Evidence Challenges,
Venue Change Motion

May 9, 2025by George Gramlich
There were two recent hearings regarding the alleged triple murder off Oak Creek Grade in November of 2023. One concerned the alleged perpetrator of the murders, Hanme Clark, and the other one was about his associate, Nancy Median-Kochis, who was charged with multiple counts of accessory to a crime. Clark is being held in the Pueblo County Jail while Kochis is out on bail.
Both of the hearings regarded motions by the respective defendants’ Defense teams regarding various issues. Clark’s hearing was mostly about the defense motion to suppress some possible evidence gathered in a search on the defendant’s property. The scenario was this: The Custer County Sheriff’s Office, the day after the alleged murder, obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s property which included a residence and a “small house”. The search was led by (ex) Deputy Jason Salbato. It was completed with daylight left. Various items were seized. The next day it appears that Deputy Salbato wanted to continue the search in case they missed something.
The Defense alleges that Salbato asked the Undersheriff, Susan Barnes, if it was ok to search again or should they get another search warrant. The Defense then alleged that Barnes responded that they could search again under the initial search warrant.(This testimony might be disputed.) The two Deputies again searched the property primarily to look for one of the victim’s cell phone. (Editor/GG: If I remember right, there might not have been anything found and seized during the second search.)
At the hearing, the Defense argued that the search warrant expired after the first day as there was no indication that the SO needed to search anymore and that there was still daylight to continue the search if they thought they weren’t finished.
The District Attorney, Jeff Lindsay, stated that the search the next day was simply a continuation of the initial search.
11th Judicial District Judge Lauren Swan then reviewed the research she had done on this issue. She noted several, mostly federal, case decisions that seemed to favor the Defense.
Judge Swan analyzed each decision and referenced them to the facts in the current case. She eventually ruled that the search warrant expired after the first day and that the second day search was illegal. Thus, any items seized during the second search were inadmissible in the case. Nobody had a list of items seized on the second search so it is unknown if this will affect the case in any meaningful way. (The DA will present a list of the items seized at the next hearing. However, it is very possible that nothing was found and seized during the second search so this whole Motion could have been a waste of time.)
The other issue discussed concerned the identification process that was used by Deputy Salbato the day of the murder to try to identify the perpetrator. This was between Deputy Salbato and one of the survivors of the attack. The Defense was concerned about the existence of a state mandated identification policy that all LEO entities in the state must have and whether the SO had that at the time of the alleged crimes. The defense argued that the way Deputy Salbato attempted to obtain the survivor identify of the alleged perpetrator was not proper and didn’t follow standard policy. (Deputy Salbato showed the driver’s license photo of the alleged perpetrator to the survivor who indicated that he was the perp.) The DA countered that at the time, it was indeed proper as there was a dangerous person on the run and time was of the essence. This went on and on. It appeared that the Judge ruled that this issue was to be argued during the actual trial.
The Defense also asked for an extension of time before the next Motions Hearing as they just received the DNA results from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and they wanted their own DNA specialist to examine them. They estimated it would take four to six weeks. As the trial date was set for June, this would push the trial date past the six-month fair trial deadline. Because of this, the Judge asked if the Defense was ok with that. Clark was asked and he said it was fine. The Judge noted that she had multiple important trials all summer and the earliest she could hear the two-week trial would be the time frame of September 22 through October 3, 2025. All parties agreed to this.
The final issue mentioned was the Defense’s motion to change the venue of the trial due to local negative news coverage. (Editor/GG: We don’t think it was the Sentinel but we will see.) Judge Swan said she would rule on that in the next hearing which is scheduled for June 16th at 1:30 p.m. There is also one final Motions Hearing scheduled for June 23rd. Judge Swan allocated a whole day for this.

The prior Kochis Motions Hearing lasted quite a while. There were some heated moments especially when DA Lindsay objected to the Defense attempting to enter into evidence a certain item. There was also a disturbance from one of Kochis’ supporters in the gallery with that man speaking out during the trial and abruptly leaving. The hearing will continue at the next court date. This will mostly concern the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.