Prosecutor’s misconduct and judge’s mistakes led to new trial | courts

Misconduct by two prosecutors and a Douglas County judge’s decision to ban key testimony led Colorado’s second-highest court on Thursday to reverse a woman’s vehicular homicide conviction.

Jurors found Jennifer Lea Woodruff guilty of killing co-worker Christopher Roberts in a car crash on Interstate 25. The defense’s theory was that Woodruff’s medical condition caused him to have a seizure while driving and crash the vehicle. Specifically, Woodruff’s involuntary response was triggered by “medical procedures and blood.”

But then-District Court Judge Patricia Herron barred jurors from hearing testimony that Roberts may have been talking about something that triggered Woodruff’s condition at the time of the crash. The two prosecutors then began misrepresenting the facts to the jury.

On October 24, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial should be held.

“We conclude that there was a cumulative effect of the court’s evidentiary error and the large number of related cases of prosecutorial misconduct.” Judge Rebecca R. Freyre wrote“it significantly influenced the verdict and affected the outcome of the hearing.”

Asked about the consequences prosecutors face when they engage in misconduct, District Attorney John Kellner responded: “We urge the attorney general to request reconsideration and will not have any comment until the appeals process is completed.”

Colorado Politics also asked a spokesman for Attorney General Phil Weiser about his office’s insistence on appeal that prosecutors “did not engage in misconduct at any point during the trial.” The spokesman declined to comment on the Court of Appeal’s decision to the contrary.

Herron is no longer a judge as he retires in December 2023. Politics of Colorado has reported numerous bugs before This led to convictions and sentences being overturned on appeal. Both Kellner and Weiser’s offices did not comment on his manner of error.

In the underlying incident, Woodruff was driving himself and Roberts from Colorado Springs to Westminster on a business assignment. Snow had begun to fall on I-25, and witnesses reported Woodruff’s vehicle was traveling extremely fast and zigzagging through traffic. The car reached speeds of approximately 100 mph and eventually crashed into another vehicle. Woodruff’s car then rolled over.

Roberts died at the scene. Woodruff suffered a serious head injury. He had no drugs or alcohol in his system and no memory of the accident. Prosecutors charged him with vehicular homicide and other crimes.

Woodruff had a history of syncope, a loss of consciousness with seizure-like symptoms. Woodruff’s syncope caused him to stiffen rather than relax.

The defense’s theory was that Roberts was talking about the gallbladder surgery he had before the crash, which triggered Woodruff’s syncope and caused him to hit the gas pedal. The weaving may have been caused by Roberts grabbing the steering wheel to try to control the vehicle.

During the trial, Woodruff’s sisters testified that they pressed Woodruff about what happened before the crash while he was in the hospital. A sister recalled Woodruff saying she and Roberts had talked about gallbladder surgery, prompting an objection from the prosecution.

Herron claimed the objection was hearsay and barred jurors from hearing the details. Two doctors who evaluated Woodruff testified that they later heard about the possible trigger from Woodruff or her sisters.

On appeal, the defense pointed to multiple incidents of alleged misconduct by prosecutors Antonio Tarantino and Brian Sugioka in their interpretation of largely excluded evidence. Regarding the “gallbladder story” they argued:

• Woodruff “went to these doctors to mount a defense.”

• Woodruff “easily remembered after making appointments with doctors.”

• Story “made up by the defense or defense witnesses.”

Tarantino and Sugioka also misrepresented facts about Woodruff’s medical condition, misrepresented doctors’ statements, gave their own personal opinions on the diagnosis, and denigrated the defense.

“If you believe that, I have an oceanfront property in Arizona that I can sell you,” one prosecutor told jurors, referring to the gallbladder story.

“Only in closing arguments is only one page of the prosecution’s argument immune from prosecutorial misconduct,” public defender Leah Scaduto told the Court of Appeals panel during oral arguments.

The appellate judges observed that Woodruff’s trial attorneys did not object to the alleged misconduct; This meant they could only reverse his convictions if his convictions were so obvious that Herron intervened without objection. But the panel seemed to agree that prosecutors clearly went too far.

“Franky, I’m concerned about some of the testimony, not just some of the testimony, but the volume of the testimony,” Judge Matthew D. Grove said. “Were all statements appropriate in your opinion?”

Assistant Attorney General Allison S. Block, who wrote that there was no misconduct “at any point in the case,” said the defense should have objected if it had a problem.

“I want you to answer Judge Grove’s question,” Judge Katharine E. Lum interrupted. “Are there any statements that you recognize as abuse?”

Block acknowledged that prosecutors made a “temporary misrepresentation.”

The appellate panel ordered a new trial based on the exclusion of testimony about the gallbladder surgery and the actions of prosecutors. Warnings were also made regarding problematic behavior that should not be repeated at the next hearing.

Here is the situation The people are against Woodruff.