A Boulder County judge deprived a man of a fair hearing by refusing to let him testify before she ordered him to be forcibly medicated, the Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

District Court Judge Nancy W. Salomone initially found that a college student identified as T.L. had a mental health disorder and granted the government’s request for treatment and involuntary administration of medication. But she did so without hearing T.L. testify and denying T.L.’s motion to extend the hearing so he could have time to respond to the witnesses against him.

“When you get a 90-minute hearing, you have to make it a 90-minute hearing,” Salomone said 80 minutes into the Oct. 27, 2021 proceedings.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals deemed her actions a significant violation of T.L.’s procedural rights.

Salomone’s refusal to hear T.L.’s testimony “deprived the court of the opportunity to observe his demeanor and to hear directly from him about his mental condition,” wrote Judge David H. Yun.

T.L.’s mother and the government had asked earlier that month that T.L. be transported to a mental health facility and held for an evaluation. They believed T.L. was a danger to himself or others. The court agreed and ordered T.L. to an emergency room for a mental health review.

On Oct. 15, 2021, a mental health facility approved T.L. for short-term treatment and asked for authority to involuntarily administer several antipsychotic and anti-anxiety medications. T.L. objected to both the treatment and the medication and asked for a court hearing.

Salomone heard testimony from T.L.’s mother about T.L.’s mental health history, including a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and bipolarity with psychosis. An administrator at T.L.’s college spoke about concerning reports the school received about T.L. believing he was being “stalked or surveilled” and that sonic sound waves were being used as “terrorism against him.”

While an attorney for Boulder County was questioning T.L.’s treating physician, Salomone interjected that the hearing had almost reached its 90-minute limit. T.L.’s attorney indicated it would take approximately one hour to question both the physician and T.L.

“When you said a 90-minute hearing, you can’t expect a three-hour hearing,” Salomone retorted, “especially when we’re dealing with transport in a time when the Sherriff’s office is short-staffed for all kinds of reasons.”

Although both parties indicated to the judge they were unaware of the time limit on the hearing, Salomone determined there could be an extension of just 40 minutes. She warned the attorneys that they were “just going to have to figure out how to get it in.”

When T.L.’s lawyer began to cross-examine the doctor, Salomone interrupted again to tell him, “you don’t have the ability to just fish and argue well beyond the time allotted for the hearing.” She then asked what T.L. would testify about as a witness.

T.L.’s lawyer responded that his client would testify that he did not believe he had a psychiatric disorder, that medication has not made a difference, that the side effects of medication have been difficult for T.L., and that his school performance improved when he was unmedicated.

Instead of continuing the hearing to another date to allow T.L. to testify, Salomone said she accepted “at face value that [T.L.] would testify to all of those things.” She ruled in favor of T.L.’s short-term treatment and the forcible administration of medication.

Upon review, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that T.L. has since agreed to voluntary treatment, but concluded that his appeal was not moot because it is possible T.L. could find himself in the same situation again. Based on Colorado’s requirement that people facing short-term treatment and involuntary medication receive a “full and fair adversarial hearing,” the appeals panel determined T.L.’s proceedings did not meet that standard.

“While the people were allowed to present all three of their witnesses, T.L.’s counsel was denied the right to call his only witness, T.L., and his cross-examination of the people’s expert was cut short,” Yun wrote in the Feb. 3 opinion.

Yun also noted that even though Salomone had repeatedly referenced a 90-minute limit, neither Boulder County nor T.L. knew beforehand about the length of the hearing. Salomone’s reasons for denying the request to continue the hearing were “not sufficient to overcome T.L.’s due process rights,” Yun added.

Richard Slosman, T.L.’s attorney, said his client appreciates the appellate panel’s findings.

“The strength of our legal system depends on participants being afforded due process. My client needs to be listened to by those providing him care and by the court,” he said.

The case is People in the Interest of T.L.