The state Court of Appeals has overturned a man’s criminal convictions and 4.5-year sentence because a Pueblo County judge and prosecutors failed to bring him to trial in time.

Although the U.S. Constitution guarantees defendants the right to a speedy trial, Colorado law is more specific. If the government does not ensure that a defendant is tried within six months of their not-guilty plea, the trial court must dismiss all charges. Prosecutors are further barred from charging the defendant again for the same offense.

A jury found Jeffrey Anthony Woodfork guilty of felony menacing and the possession of a weapon by a prior offender. The government alleged that Woodfork had applied pressure to his partner’s neck and fired a gun near her. Woodfork denied the assault and claimed the alleged victim had actually fired the gun. The jurors acquitted Woodfork of assault.

The trial began on Aug. 31, 2020, little more than a year since Woodfork pleaded not guilty. Originally, Woodfork’s trial date was Jan. 6, 2020. The victim, however, did not appear, nor did Woodfork’s sister, who was another witness for the prosecution. Over Woodfork’s objection, then-District Court Judge Kimberly J. Karn reset the trial for March 30, approximately six weeks beyond the speedy trial deadline in state law.

In that time, the novel coronavirus began to spread throughout Colorado and jury trial were suspended as a consequence. On March 30, Karn declared a mistrial, again over the defense’s objection. The same thing happened on June 1, the new trial date.

On Aug. 28, the defense asserted that Woodfork’s right to a speedy trial was violated, but Karn overruled the objection. The trial commenced three days later.

As part of Colorado’s speedy trial law, a judge may extend the trial date at the prosecution’s request without running afoul of the six-month deadline. To do so requires the court to find that, despite the prosecution acting with due diligence, there is key evidence unavailable on the trial date that will reasonably be available later.

In Woodfork’s case, Karn deemed the non-appearance of the two prosecution witnesses merited the first extension outside of the speedy trial window.

Woodfork argued on appeal that the prosecution had not satisfied any of the criteria for receiving the extension. There was no indication the prosecution exercised due diligence to secure the witnesses’ appearance, asserted Woodfork’s attorney. She added that one of the witnesses, Woodfork’s sister, never actually appeared for trial, calling into question her status as a key witness in the first place.

“Here, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable basis to believe that (the witnesses) were only temporarily unavailable, where in fact, both these witnesses failed to appear at any of the trial dates in January 2020, March 2020, or June 2020,” wrote attorney Suzan Trinh Almony to the Court of Appeals.

Almony also quoted from a Colorado Supreme Court decision issued three months into the COVID-19 pandemic. While the justices agreed that trial courts could extend the speedy trial period if the public health emergency made certain evidence, including witness testimony, unavailable, the Supreme Court cautioned that “the prosecution cannot use a public health crisis as an excuse for its lack of due diligence.”

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals confined its review to the question of whether the victim’s testimony was material to the prosecution’s case. While Karn had said at the time that “Clearly, these two witnesses are material witnesses,” her perfunctory explanation did not satisfy the appellate judges.

The prosecution “stated only that ‘my two necessary witnesses are not here.’ There is nothing in the record showing that the district court weighed the materiality of the victim’s testimony or the competing interest of Woodfork’s right to a speedy trial,” wrote Judge Craig R. Welling in the April 7 opinion.

Based the prosecution’s failure to show it was eligible for an extension, the panel concluded Karn should have set Woodfork’s trial to begin by Feb. 16, 2020, six months from his not-guilty plea. Because she did not, the panel vacated his convictions. 

The case is People v. Woodfork.