Appeals court finds El Paso judge properly handled ‘violent outburst’ during jury deliberations
Colorado’s second-highest court has found an El Paso County judge properly addressed a “violent outburst” that occurred during jury deliberations, and consequently declined to reverse the defendant’s convictions.
A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals believed a heated confrontation in the jury room that left one juror feeling “threatened” did not amount to the type of misconduct that required additional intervention from District Court Judge Lin Billings Vela.
“There were no threats made toward any juror, but instead, there was an emotional outburst by a single juror. Once the trial court was aware of the circumstances, it did not need to inquire further about the conduct,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre in the panel’s Nov. 10 opinion.
Jorge Luis Rodriguez Uzueta stood trial in July 2019 for criminal charges related to a large-scale marijuana grow operation. On the second day of jury deliberations, there were indications of a deadlock on one of the counts.
A clerk then told Billings Vela that one person, identified as Juror 12, “wanted me to tell you that he felt a little intimidated and threatened.”
Billings Vela called Juror 12 into the courtroom during a break to learn more.
“Things have gotten kind of deadlocked,” Juror 12 told her. “A lot of tempers and emotional – a lot of emotional dialogue, and I don’t think we’re able to come to consensus.”
Billings Vela indicated she could speak to the whole jury about a deadlock, but “there had been some indication maybe you felt some personal threat,” the judge continued.
“Well, there’s been sort of a violent outburst. One of the other jurors slammed some papers and books in front of me and it sort of ended any notion of a civil discussion for a short period of time,” Juror 12 replied.
Bilings Vela asked whether Juror 12 would feel comfortable if she brought the jury into the courtroom to provide guidance. The judge added she would not do so “if you don’t feel safe.”
“I feel safe enough to continue,” Juror 12 said.
Billings Vela then addressed the entire jury about reaching consensus in its verdict. Soon afterward, the jury announced decisions on three of the charges and remained unable to arrive at a unanimous verdict on the fourth. Billings Vela polled the jurors individually about the verdict and none of them indicated any coercion.
Rodriguez Uzueta subsequently received a sentence of 16 years in prison.
His attorney then asked the court to release information about Juror 12 so he could investigate whether “outside influences may have been brought to bear upon jurors.” Colorado’s rules of evidence prohibit jurors from testifying about what happens during deliberations, but there are exceptions if outside influences or external, prejudicial information affects the jury. Threats by fellow jurors also fall within the exception.
In response, Billings Vela declined to facilitate the investigation of Juror 12.
“The Court was not surprised, nor is it unusual to hear there are arguments during jury deliberations,” she wrote. “The Court does not find that slamming of papers and books, while inappropriate, rise to the level of threat, abuse or coercion that may necessitate further inquiry into the matter.”
Rodriguez Uzueta then turned to the Court of Appeals. He argued Billings Vela mistakenly analyzed the allegations of a violent outburst in the jury room. Rather than questioning the effect of the outburst on Juror 12 specifically, she needed to examine how such behavior would impact a “typical juror.”
But the appellate panel concluded no such inquiry was even necessary because the conduct at issue – slamming books and emotional discussion – did not amount to threatening behavior.
Although Juror 12 initially reported feeling intimidated to the clerk, “during the court’s interview of Juror 12, he did not allege any coercive or threatening acts warranting further investigation,” Freyre noted.
The panel turned down the request to reverse Rodriguez Uzueta’s convictions outright or return his case to the trial court for further analysis.
The case is People v. Rodriguez Uzueta.


