A man who shot his victim multiple times allegedly based on hallucinations will receive a new trial because the state’s second-highest court found Jefferson County law enforcement misled him about the constitutional right to an attorney prior to his confession.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals reviewed the video from Erik Jamal Newton’s interrogation with two Jeffco Sheriff’s Office personnel and concluded that Newton remained unsure of his Miranda rights, in particular the right to speak with a court-appointed attorney if he could not afford one. Instead, the interrogators left Newton with the impression that he needed to pay for his own lawyer.

“(A)ny Miranda advisement that either contains an affirmative misrepresentation of a defendant’s rights or misleads a defendant about a material fact regarding those rights, such as a defendant’s right to an attorney regardless of his ability to pay, is inherently insufficient,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove in the June 2 opinion.

Because prosecutors relied heavily on Newton’s unconstitutionally-obtained confession during trial, the appellate court reversed Newton’s convictions for murder and evidence tampering.

A psychiatrist who evaluated Newton found that he likely suffered from hallucinations around June 17, 2016 when he shot and killed Zachary Greenstreet, who lived at the family home of Newton’s high school friend. Newton said that, at the time, he was plagued by voices taunting and threatening him. He underwent treatment, during which he received antipsychotic medication.

However, Newton stopped taking the medicine due to the side effects. He reportedly believed that shooting Greenstreet or another member of Greenstreet’s family would cause the voices to cease.

After gunning down Greenstreet in his driveway, Newton buried the gun in a cemetery. An officer saw him and arrested Newton for trespassing. Upon his release from the Jefferson County jail, Newton returned to the cemetery and retrieved the gun. Around that time, police arrested him again, but for the murder of Greenstreet.

At the police station, sheriff’s employees Vernon Woodin and Elias Alberti began questioning Newton. Woodin first provided Newton a list of his Miranda rights and read them aloud. He initially told Newton that if Newton could not afford to hire an attorney, “one will be appointed to represent you before questioning if you wish.”

Before signing the form indicating he understood his rights, Newton hesitated.

“Um, well, I do wish to talk to you and I, I can’t afford a lawyer, and an attorney – when I go to court, wouldn’t he be there anyway?” Newton asked.

Woodin responded, erroneously, “An attorney would be appointed after, um – the only way that you would get an attorney now is if you were able to pay for one.”

“Right, I can’t,” Newton said.

Alberti attempted to clarify that Newton did have the right to answer questions with an attorney present, and he would receive an attorney when he went to court.

“And I’d have to pay for that one, right?” Newton asked.

“I think you’re confused,” Alberti answered. “The right is that you, you can have an attorney sitting here if you want one. So, my question is to you, just so we’re on the same page, are you willing to talk to us without an attorney present or would you like to have an attorney present before you answer any questions?”

“Um, no, I think it’s fine,” Newton said.

He signed the form indicating he was waiving his Miranda rights and proceeded to confess to shooting Greenstreet.

The defense subsequently asked the trial court to suppress Newton’s statements made during the interrogation, based on Newton’s representation that he “couldn’t really comprehend what was going on.” The defense claimed Newton did not understand he had the right to an attorney before and during the interrogation, even if he could not afford one.

“You’re probably going to get some clarification from the Court of Appeals,” mused then-District Court Judge Christie A. Bachmeyer before denying the motion. Although Newton attempted to show at trial that his hallucinations meant he could not form the intent required for first-degree murder, a jury found him guilty and he received a life sentence.

Newton appealed his conviction and the government maintained that he had voluntarily waived his Miranda rights with full awareness of the consequences. 

“Before any substantive questioning, the officers clarified Newton’s right to an attorney; they told him that he had the right to have an attorney present for any questioning, if he wanted to have one present; and they made clear that he could refuse to answer any questions without his attorney present,” wrote Senior Assistant Attorney General Jacob R. Lofgren to the Court of Appeals.

But the appellate panel disagreed that Woodin and Alberti made Newton’s rights clear to him, finding it “obvious” that Newton was unsure of his right to counsel.

“Woodin affirmatively misinformed Newton about his Miranda rights, telling him that ‘the only way’ he could have an attorney present for questioning would be if he was able ‘to pay for one’,” wrote Grove. “Notably, despite Newton’s obvious confusion, at no point during the conversation did either officer correct Woodin’s affirmative misrepresentation.”

Grove explained that prosecutors relied on Newton’s confession throughout all phases of the trial. Further, because the confession supported the prosecution’s argument that Newton intended to kill Greenstreet, it likely provided a basis for his conviction. The panel ordered a new trial with directions to exclude Newton’s confession to the police.

The appellate judges declined to address Newton’s other challenges to his convictions, including his claim that a relative of Greenstreet’s yelled “he’s lying” during the trial, and that it was wrong for the psychiatrist to read aloud from “The Satanic Bible” to the jury.

The case is People v. Newton.