At a time of an undeniable crime tsunami in Colorado, several progressive attorneys and judges are seeking to dramatically change our criminal trials by injecting “wokeness” into the jury-selection process. It tortures the law and undermines the integrity of our justice system.

Currently, a prospective juror can be removed (or “struck”) from a jury by a prosecutor or defense attorney in a criminal case based upon answers that suggest bias in favor of or against a witness, including a victim or law enforcement, a defendant, or even the type of law being prosecuted. Obviously, if a juror harbors mistrust, skepticism or even animus against a witness whose credibility they must judge… that juror should not sit on that jury. The same removal would be justified for a juror who expressed great trust, affection or admiration for a witness or defendant. The reason for a juror’s potential bias for or against a witness has never been relevant in our law.

Until now.

This month, in unprecedented efforts to inject “implicit racial bias” into the selection of juries in criminal cases, several Colorado Court of Appeals judges and a group of offender-friendly members of a rules-making committee have invented a brand-new legal standard which may be imposed on every criminal court in our state. We should resist and reject that effort.

In People v. Roberts, a potential juror (of a racial minority) – apparently from the same minority class as the defendant and victim in the case – for a case that involved the credibility of police officers, responded to a question about bad experiences with law enforcement by stating, “Yes. Many cases where cops are disrespectful due to certain racial identities.” The juror also stated that they would find it difficult to not speculate about the past in judging the evidence of the present crime. Predictably, the prosecutor sought to strike that juror. The court disagreed with the defense attorney that the prosecutor was motivated by discriminatory intent. Based on the existing legal standard in Colorado, that was the end of it.

Just kidding.

Enter two Court of Appeals judges to voice their belief that “discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation” and thus, invent an approach to analyzing future claims of racial discrimination in jury selection that they admit neither the Colorado nor U.S. Supreme Courts have adopted. In fact, they state that they are “not convinced” that the Supreme Court’s reluctance to adopt their approach should dissuade them from plowing ahead into the realm of legal invention. So, they do.

Their invented standard invites trial judges to speculate about the reasons for a prospective juror’s bias and then provides constitutional protections for bias assumed to have stemmed from claimed racial discrimination. The never-before-used standard suggests that an even more strongly worded declaration that a minority juror thinks “all cops are racist” would prevent a juror from being removed for that admitted and obvious bias, because appellate judges will infer race-based motives by prosecutors. Now, the source of a juror’s expressed bias is not only relevant, but it will prevent such a juror from being removed. But only if that juror is a minority. If a white juror were to give the same answer, the judges would not speculate as to its source, nor would it question a prosecutor’s claim that such words express potential bias. That white juror would be removed without question.

The judges are not alone in their efforts to remake jury selection.

By a vote of defense attorneys and judges, the Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure -which proposes changes to trial rules – has proposed a change that seeks to codify wokeness into jury selection. Currently, a white juror who “express(es) a distrust of law enforcement” may be properly struck from a jury for that bias with no further inquiry. That is a no-brainer. Under the new rule, a presumed minority juror cannot be. The proposed rule declares such a basis for striking a minority juror to be “presumptively invalid.” Huh?

To be clear, white, Black or otherwise, each juror would bring their bias against police into a trial in which police credibility (which they will determine) is a major factor, but only the white juror could be excused for it. Imagine being in a case in which your justice gets sacrificed at the altar of “social justice.”

Prosecutors on the committee made the logically consistent suggestion that jurors who express trust in and support for law enforcement should be equally protected from removal. In rejecting that suggestion, one committee member stated the purpose of their new rule is “not to keep white people on juries…”

The rule goes farther. It declares that striking a juror for “sleeping, (being) inattentive, or staring or failing to make eye contact; or exhibited a problematic attitude, body language, or demeanor” to be “associated with improper discrimination in jury selection.” Presumably, that “improper discrimination” does not extend to sleeping or visibly disgruntled white jurors.

Only the Colorado Supreme Court can stop this crazy train of wokeness from undermining our jury system, whether it be by overturning the Court of Appeals, or by rejecting the rule change. Here’s hoping they do just that.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is president of the Advance Colorado Academy, which identifies, trains and connects conservative leaders in Colorado. He hosts The George Brauchler Show on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter: @GeorgeBrauchler.