Colorado’s second-highest court has overturned a woman’s convictions for burglary and theft after a Lincoln County judge permitted two biased jurors to serve.

Although the state and federal constitutions guarantee the right to an impartial jury, multiple people who sat on Kathyrn Therese Oakes’ jury voiced their opinion that the criminally accused may be “hiding something” if they choose not to testify in their own defense. In reality, the government has the burden of proving criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and defendants have no obligation to prove their innocence.

Oakes stood trial in early 2020 for allegedly stealing $1,000 from the truck stop where she worked. During the part of jury selection where lawyers ask questions of potential jurors, known as voir dire, a man identified as Juror S indicated he wanted to hear Oakes testify.

“If somebody was accusing me of something, I would dang sure stand up and fight for myself,” Juror S explained.

The defense attorney asked if any other jurors felt that way. Another man, Juror B, said he was a “strong believer in the truth will set you free.”

“So when someone isn’t willing to say what the truth is from their perspective or what the facts are from their perspective,” he added, “that gives the indication they’re hiding something.”

Finally, Juror M said he did not see “why you wouldn’t stand up for yourself and speak what the truth is.”

The defense sought to dismiss all three jurors for bias. District Court Judge H. Clay Hurst, without elaboration, excused Juror S but kept Jurors B and M on Oakes’ jury. She did not testify at trial and the jury found her guilty.

On appeal, Oakes argued the information from Jurors B and M indicated they would not trust a defendant who exercised her constitutional right to remain silent. There was no rehabilitation of either man, a process that involves further questioning by the trial judge in an attempt to get a biased juror to commit to following the law.

The government countered that Jurors B and M were merely offering their personal opinions and were not saying they held a bias against Oakes specifically. Further, Hurst had asked at the beginning of voir dire whether the jury pool could decide the case fairly, and neither Juror B nor Juror M said anything to the contrary.

But a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, in reviewing Oakes’ case, was skeptical a trial judge’s blanket comments before any jurors began answering questions could clear up the question of bias.

“Is your point that somehow the court making that statement at the beginning before the jurors talk about testifying or not testifying, that that somehow has an effect on how we look at the jurors’ statements?” Judge Elizabeth L. Harris asked the prosecution during oral arguments last month.

In the panel’s opinion, Judge Neeti Vasant Pawar agreed with Oakes that nothing happened to rehabilitate Jurors B and M after they expressed doubts about any defendant who did not testify in their defense. While other jurors had the opportunity to clarify their thoughts about the prosecution’s burden of proof, Jurors B and M never committed to following the law.

“Juror B did not respond to a direct question as to whether that explanation made sense, and Juror M was not subject to any further questioning,” Pawar wrote in the Oct. 6 opinion.

She added that Hurst’s preliminary instructions to the jury pool did not count as rehabilitation. The panel ordered a new trial for Oakes.

The case is People v. Oakes.