The state’s Court of Appeals ruled last week that a juror who was “buddies” with one of the prosecution’s witnesses was not biased and properly served on a Gilpin County criminal trial.

Jurors convicted William Allen Davis in 2017 of multiple driving-related charges. Then-District Court Judge Dennis J. Hall cautioned beforehand that because Gilpin County has a small population, he could not remove a juror for cause simply because they knew one of the law enforcement witnesses.

During jury selection, a man identified as Juror G acknowledged he knew Undersheriff John Bayne because they were nextdoor neighbors who went snowmobiling and did “a lot of stuff together.”

“You are buddies?” asked the defense attorney.

“A little bit,” Juror G responded. He added that he had moved out of the house next to Bayne, but still owned the property. Bayne was “keeping an eye” on the home for him.

Juror G maintained, however, that he would evaluate Bayne’s testimony fairly and give it equal weight to that of other witnesses.

The defense moved to dismiss Juror G for bias, reasoning there was a “significant” relationship between the two men.

“There are people in government like Undersheriff Bayne who pretty much knows everybody and it’s just something that you have to deal with in a small community,” Hall responded in denying the request.

On appeal, Davis argued that despite Juror G’s assertion he could be fair, “their very relationship established impermissible bias on the part of the juror,” wrote attorney Mallika L. Magner.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals rejected that argument, finding the presence of Juror G on the jury had not violated Davis’ constitutional right to a fair trial.

“Juror G did not express any hesitation about his impartiality,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove in the June 22 opinion. “An attorney’s speculation about a juror’s bias, despite the juror’s clear articulation of his ability to be impartial, is insufficient to remove the juror for cause.”

Case: People v. Davis

Decided: June 22, 2023

Jurisdiction: Gilpin County

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Matthew D. Grove (author)

Terry Fox

Elizabeth L. Harris

Background: Colorado Supreme Court rules poor defendants have no right to keep assigned lawyer

Davis’ case previously came before the same appellate panel in 2021. At the time, Davis argued Hall should have granted his motion to postpone the trial so Davis could keep his assigned public defender, who had a scheduling conflict the day of Davis’ trial. Instead, Hall found Davis had no right to go to trial with the appointed lawyer of his choice. A new public defender consequently had 72 hours to prepare for the trial.

Although the appellate panel believed Hall was mistaken to reject Davis’ postponement request outright, the Colorado Supreme Court decided in April that there is no constitutional right for poor defendants to keep their preferred public defender through trial. By 6-1, the justices upheld Hall’s conclusion that Davis’ criminal case was not complex and a new public defender could handle it on three days’ notice.

The Supreme Court returned the case to the Court of Appeals to address Davis’ other arguments.

The case is People v. Davis.