Colorado’s second-highest court ruled on Thursday that a Saguache County judge was not biased against a criminal defendant whose case she briefly worked on during her prior career as a public defender.

A jury convicted Donald L. Garcia of motor vehicle theft in a trial presided over by Chief Judge Amanda C. Hopkins. On appeal, it came to light that before Hopkins’ judicial appointment, she acted as Garcia’s lawyer when she substituted for the assigned public defender at a single, short hearing earlier in the proceedings. Although state law disqualified her from handling the case as a judge, neither Hopkins, the defense nor the prosecution called attention to the problem in the trial court.

Initially, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Garcia, reasoning Hopkins’ participation rendered her a biased judge under the law and affected the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. However, the state Supreme Court, 4-3, upheld Garcia’s conviction, with the majority reasoning his defense attorneys almost certainly knew about the conflict and stayed silent.

After the decision, Garcia asked the Supreme Court to give him another shot in the Court of Appeals. He pointed to his alternative argument that Hopkins’ participation presented an “unconstitutional potential for bias.” Further, Hopkins was not only biased according to Colorado law, but actually biased against him.

The Supreme Court modified its decision and directed the Court of Appeals panel to further evaluate whether a violation of Garcia’s constitutional rights occurred or if Garcia had another avenue to show Hopkins’ participation warranted a new trial. In response, the appellate judges were somewhat bewildered at what the Supreme Court expected from them.

“We begin by noting that it is not entirely clear what we have been instructed to decide,” wrote Judge Ted C. Tow III, who authored the original decision reversing Garcia’s conviction.

Tow elaborated that if Garcia’s trial lawyers had relinquished his ability to argue Hopkins was disqualified as a judge — as the Supreme Court’s majority believed — the other pathways for Garcia to challenge Hopkins’ participation were also non-starters.

The one claim that remained viable, however, was Garcia’s contention Hopkins was actually biased against him. Under the circumstances, the panel concluded there was no evidence Hopkins was biased against the person who was her client “in only the most technical sense.”

“And he does not address the obvious possibility that, to the extent an attorney who becomes a judge might be biased as a result of her prior involvement in the case, it could well be bias in favor of the former client,” Tow wrote in the Aug. 15 opinion.

The case is People v. Garcia.