Only one person shot Eric Schnaare at a Lakewood apartment. Two defendants each said the other did it. They were tried together, and a jury convicted both of them.

Now, the Court of Appeals has reversed the convictions for one defendant, Andrew George Gutierrez, because the Jefferson County trial judge’s refusal to separate his criminal proceedings from those of John Orlando Sanchez deprived Gutierrez of a fair trial.

“This gladiator-style trial is not one that we can condone,” wrote Alex J. Martinez, a retired state Supreme Court justice who sat on the three-judge appellate panel that heard Gutierrez’s case. “It is quite clear from counsel’s arguments and the evidence presented at trial that Gutierrez’s defense was antagonistic to Sanchez’s. Further, the prejudice resulting from a joint trial under these circumstances was made clear to the court on multiple occasions.”

The panel’s August 19 opinion means Gutierrez is entitled to a new trial, more than four years after a jury convicted him and Sanchez and they received life sentences for murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

“We respect the decision of the Court of Appeals disagreeing with the trial court and are prepared to proceed in accordance with the court’s order,” said a spokesperson for First Judicial District Attorney Alexis King, whose office originally prosecuted the case.

Police discovered Schnaare’s body on May 15, 2015. Schnaare, 41, had arrived in the early morning hours at the apartment where Gutierrez, Sanchez and others were drinking and using methamphetamine. Prosecutors characterized the location as a hangout for gang members, and alleged Gutierrez and Sanchez were high-ranking members of the Gallant Knights Insane gang.

After Schnaare entered, he was shot four times. One witness said Gutierrez shot Schnaare, but another said it was Sanchez who killed him. The prosecution told the jury they could find “either one of these defendants guilty.”

Gutierrez repeatedly requested that Jefferson County District Court Judge Todd L. Vriesman hold separate trials for the two defendants. Based on the fact that there was only one shooter, each defendant would accuse the other of being the murderer – known as an antagonistic defense. Gutierrez argued that he was essentially facing two prosecutions: one from the government and another from Sanchez trying to pin the blame on him.

A series of procedural snafus flowed from the decision to combine. Both Gutierrez and Sanchez told Vriesman that holding a joint trial would mean that attempts by Gutierrez to attack the credibility of Sanchez’s statements would result in Sanchez introducing evidence of Gutierrez’s prior convictions. Prosecutors also used evidence that Sanchez confessed to the murder as proof of Gutierrez’s involvement.

The prosecution “has blamed two people for one murder involving what the physical evidence seems to show was one gun involved,” Sanchez’s lawyer observed. “They’re throwing the gun in the middle of the room and saying: You guys get a trial together, you figure it out and figure out what’s going on.”

Vriesman denied all requests to sever before the trial. During trial, there were three more similar motions that the judge refused. In addition, Vriesman faced 15 more objections from the defendants about potential prejudice to them in the combined proceedings.

Vriesman instead chose to give limiting instructions – a direction to the jury to consider a piece of evidence only for a specific purpose – a total of 21 times. On one occasion, for example, Vriesman instructed that “evidence of gang association can only be considered for the limited purpose of proving motive, the mental states of after deliberation, intentionally and knowingly and the relationship between John Sanchez and Andrew Gutierrez.”

That tactic troubled Martinez, who wondered how a jury could keep track of all the court’s restrictions.

“This case, with so much evidence that was limited from one and another, seems to raise a huge concern,” he observed at oral arguments. “Is there some limit to the extent to which you can just give limiting instructions and still believe the jury can keep it straight?”

Senior Assistant Attorney General John T. Lee defended Vriesman’s handling of the joint trial, saying “mere finger-pointing between codefendants” did not justify severing the criminal cases.

Martinez, in the appellate panel’s opinion, found the government’s evidence against Gutierrez to be “not overwhelming.” By contrast, Sanchez’s case against Gutierrez contributed significantly to the information at the jury’s disposal.

“Because Gutierrez had to defend himself against two accusers, only one of which had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude that Gutierrez suffered prejudice from the joint jury trial,” Martinez concluded.

The district attorney’s office did not immediately clarify the status of Sanchez’s case.

The case is People v. Gutierrez.