On Friday, August 16, 2024, Colorado Politics reported that the Colorado Court of Appeals confirmed there was no bias by a judge who had formerly represented the criminal defendant in a brief hearing early in the case.

The case involved Donald L. Garcia, who was convicted of motor vehicle theft by a jury in a trial presided over by Saguache County Chief Judge Amanda C. Hopkins. It later came to light that before her appointment to the bench, Judge Hopkins had acted as Garcia’s public defender at a single, short hearing when she substituted for the assigned public defender. Under Colorado law, this meant Judge Hopkins was technically disqualified from presiding over the trial. However, neither the defense nor the prosecution had pointed out the potential conflict of interest at the time.

Initially, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals had ordered a new trial for Garcia, reasoning that Judge Hopkins’ participation in the case had rendered her a biased judge under state law and affected the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. But the Colorado Supreme Court later upheld Garcia’s conviction in a 4-3 decision, finding that his defense attorneys likely knew about the conflict and did not raise any objections.

After this ruling, Garcia asked the Supreme Court to reconsider and allow the Court of Appeals to further evaluate his alternative argument that Judge Hopkins’ involvement presented an unconstitutional potential for bias against him. The Supreme Court agreed and directed the appeals court panel to re-examine whether a violation of Garcia’s constitutional rights had occurred or if there were other grounds to warrant a new trial.

In its new opinion issued on August 15, the Court of Appeals panel expressed confusion over the Supreme Court’s instructions, noting it was unclear what exactly they were meant to decide. The panel found that if Garcia’s trial lawyers had waived their ability to argue Judge Hopkins was disqualified, then his other claims around challenging her participation were also moot.

The only viable claim remaining was Garcia’s assertion that Judge Hopkins was actually biased against him. However, the appeals court concluded there was no evidence of bias against Garcia, who was Judge Hopkins’ client “only in the most technical sense” during the brief prior hearing. The panel also pointed out that any pre-existing bias could plausibly have been in Garcia’s favor rather than against him.

 

 

Source: Colorado Politics