ARAPAHOE COUNTY, Colo. — A former social worker charged with falsely accusing an Aurora city councilwoman of child abuse saw her criminal case take a dramatic turn Monday when her attorneys quit amid allegations that she faked a brain tumor diagnosis.
Now Robin Niceta, 41, could face additional criminal charges -- and the attorneys involved in the case could also suffer repercussions -- after a motion filed by her lawyers March 31 that requested an evaluation to determine if she was incompetent to stand trial. That motion and medical records attached to it remain sealed, but statements in court and a filing by the special prosecutor in the case showed that it included documents purported to show that Niceta had brain cancer that was very likely terminal.
If Niceta had been evaluated, and found incompetent, the ramifications could have included dismissal of the charges.
In the wake of the new disclosures, Arapahoe County District Court Judge David Karpel said the trial would go on as scheduled on Aug. 1.
“The court is gravely concerned," Karpel said during the hearing. "I’m gravely concerned about the veracity of a number of the statements that were made in the defense’s motion seeking incompetency.”
Those concerns led Karpel to order Niceta to appear in person for the hearing.
Niceta, 41, faces a felony charge of attempting to influence a public servant and a separate misdemeanor count of filing a false child abuse report.
According to court documents, the criminal case involving Niceta began in January 2022, when an anonymous phone tip called into the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services suggested that Aurora City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky may have sexually abused her young son. Case workers investigated but found that Jurinsky did nothing wrong and closed the case.
At the same time, according to court documents, the anonymous call was traced to Niceta, then the partner of former Aurora Police Chief Vanessa Wilson. She was accused of making the call the day after Jurinsky criticized Wilson while speaking on a podcast, calling her “trash,” according to court documents.
The criminal case against Niceta was working its way through the court when her attorneys filed two motions – one on March 24 to delay her trial and one on March 31 seeking an evaluation of whether she was incompetent. Other court documents make it clear that Niceta’s attorneys provided medical records purported to show that she had been diagnosed with glioblastoma, the most aggressive and common type of brain cancer and one that is usually deadly.
Daniel Cohen, a chief deputy district attorney from Denver who is acting as special prosecutor in the case, asserted in a court filing that MRI images purported to show Niceta's brain tumor could be found on the internet with a simple search -- and that the doctor and clinic listed in medical records filed with the court appear not to exist.
He also suggested that Niceta's own attorneys were hoodwinked.
“It is the people’s earnest belief that the information below was just as new and surprising to the defense counsel as it was to the people,” Cohen wrote in a motion filed last week.
In court Monday, he also told the judge that he did not believe defense attorneys Marci LaBranche and John Graham "provided me with anything that was knowingly false.”
But Judge Karpel pointed out that some of the records submitted to the court by the defense suggested that Niceta had suffered cognitive decline after a 2021 assault and then experienced a brain aneurysm in February 2022 that left her "essentially non-verbal." But there was a problem, Karpel said: Among the items submitted to the court was a videotaped interview with Niceta done on May 3, 2022.
“In that interview, Miss Niceta was quite verbal,” the judge said.
Karpel told the attorneys he had to make a determination as to whether the lawyers should face an inquiry into a potential violation of one of the rules governing the conduct of lawyers in court. Rule 3.3, headed "Candor Toward the Tribunal," prohibits attorneys from knowingly making a false statement to the court -- or failing to correct a false statement of fact or law made previously.
Kerpel did not indicate how soon he might make a decision on that issue.
After a discussion about the request from LaBranche and Graham to withdraw from the case, Kerpel turned to Niceta.
“Your attorneys want off your case," the judge said. "And they’re saying they want off your case due to irreconcilable differences.”
He asked Niceta if she consented to letting them stop representing her.
“Yes," she said. "I appreciate everything that they have done.”
Another lawyer, Frank Moya, agreed to take the case. And he told the judge he would abandon the question of whether Niceta is competent to go ahead.
Niceta and Moya left the courthouse without answering questions from reporters.
Jurinsky, however, did speak.
"I have no medical background. I am not a doctor," she said to a reporter. "I walked out of the last court date -- I walked right over to you, I believe, and looked right at your camera and said, 'She's a liar. She's a liar. Not only is she a liar, she's an actress.'"
"I feel very vindicated today -- I can tell you that," Jurinsky said.
Jurinsky separately filed a civil defamation suit against Niceta. In that case, a judge ordered Niceta to pay Jurinsky $3 million.
Contact 9Wants to Know investigator Kevin Vaughan with tips about this or any story: kevin.vaughan@9news.com or 303-871-1862.
SUGGESTED VIDEOS: Investigations & Crime