Colorado’s second-highest court has ordered a new trial for a man convicted of domestic violence-related offenses after acknowledging an unusual scenario in which the trial judge, prosecutor and defense attorney confused one juror for another, and neglected to dismiss the juror they all agreed was biased.

An El Paso County jury convicted Cory James Wooldridge in 2021 of assault and harassment, stemming from a domestic violence encounter in which he and the alleged victim disputed who the aggressor was.

During jury selection, two women identified as Juror D and Juror R sat next to each other. District Court Judge Michael McHenry asked the jury pool if anyone had personal experience with domestic violence and both women raised their hands.

Juror R said she was arrested for assaulting her ex-husband in self-defense and still got angry when thinking about it. Juror D disclosed her stepdaughter died three or four years prior from domestic violence. Like Juror R, Juror D said she was still angry when asked if she had “moved on” from her stepdaughter’s slaying.

Unlike Juror R, Juror D cried while speaking about her stepdaughter’s death.

When the prosecution and the defense began excusing jurors for cause, McHenry asked the lawyers if they had any concerns about Juror R because she “had some strong opinions” about domestic violence.

The prosecutor, mistaking Juror R for Juror D, agreed the woman had “a very strong emotional connection when she was talking about her stepdaughter.”

“My general rule is if anybody cries or has tears, I usually excuse them,” the unnamed prosecutor continued.

“I kinda use the same rule, and she came out so emotionally that I made a mark on her,” McHenry agreed.

The defense also consented to dismiss Juror R and McHenry excused her from the jury. Juror D, who the parties actually meant to remove, wound up sitting on Wooldridge’s jury.

Case: People v. Wooldridge

Decided: March 28, 2024

Jurisdiction: El Paso County

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Sueanna P. Johnson (author)

Rebecca R. Freyre

Jaclyn Casey Brown

On appeal, Wooldridge argued the mix-up between jurors resulted in a violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury.

“Juror D’s response that she was angry communicated to the judge that she could not be unbiased in this trial,” wrote public defender Kira L. Suyeishi. “The record shows that if the court and the attorneys had not been confused about which prospective juror talked about her stepdaughter’s murder, Juror D would have been excused for cause.”

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office maintained there was no need for a new trial because Wooldridge’s trial attorney allegedly knew about the mistake and “showed an attitude of indifference towards it.”

But a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals responded that no evidence suggested anyone realized what went wrong until after trial. Judge Sueanna P. Johnson, in the panel’s March 28 opinion, called the collective mix-up “understandable,” but concluded Juror D’s ultimate participation rendered Wooldridge’s trial unfair.

“Juror D demonstrated bias in support of victims of domestic violence given the tragic incident involving her stepdaughter,” she wrote. “And both the court and prosecutor agreed that having someone so emotional on the jury could be problematic, with the prosecutor stating she usually removes jurors who have cried.”

The panel ordered a new trial.

The case is People v. Wooldridge.