Misconduct by two prosecutors and a Douglas County judge’s decision to bar crucial testimony prompted Colorado’s second-highest court on Thursday to reverse a woman’s vehicular homicide conviction.

Jurors convicted Jennifer Lea Woodruff of killing her coworker, Christopher Roberts, in a car accident along Interstate 25. The defense’s theory was that Woodruff’s medical condition caused her to seize up while driving and crash the vehicle. Specifically, Woodruff’s involuntary response was triggered by “medical procedures and gore.”

However, then-District Court Judge Patricia Herron barred jurors from hearing testimony that Roberts may have spoken about a topic that triggered Woodruff’s condition at the time of the crash. The two prosecutors then proceeded to misrepresent the facts to the jury.

On Oct. 24, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals determined a new trial was warranted.

“We conclude that the cumulative effect of the court’s evidentiary error and the numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct related to it,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre, “substantially influenced the verdict and affected the outcome of the trial.”

District Attorney John Kellner, when asked about the consequences prosecutors face when they commit misconduct, responded: “I urge the Attorney General to seek reconsideration and will not have any comment until the appellate process is finished.”

Colorado Politics also asked a spokesperson for Attorney General Phil Weiser about his office’s insistence on appeal that prosecutors “did not engage in misconduct at any point of the trial.” The spokesperson declined to comment on the Court of Appeals’ finding to the contrary.

Herron is no longer a judge, having retired in December 2023. Colorado Politics previously reported on her numerous errors that have led to convictions and sentences being overturned on appeal. Both Kellner and Weiser’s offices did not comment on her pattern of mistakes.

In the underlying case, Woodruff was driving herself and Roberts from Colorado Springs to Westminster for a work function. Snow had begun to fall on I-25 and witnesses reported Woodruff’s vehicle traveling extremely fast and weaving through traffic. The car reached approximately 100 mph and eventually hit another vehicle. Woodruff’s car then flipped over.

Roberts died on scene. Woodruff experienced a serious head injury. She had no drugs or alcohol in her system and had no memory of the accident. Prosecutors charged her with vehicular homicide and other offenses.

Woodruff had a history of syncope, a loss of consciousness with symptoms that manifested similarly to a seizure. Rather than going limp, Woodruff’s syncope caused her to stiffen up.

The defense’s theory was that Roberts had been talking about his recent gallbladder surgery prior to the accident, triggering Woodruff’s syncope and causing her to depress the accelerator. The weaving could have been caused by Roberts grabbing the wheel to try to control the vehicle.

During trial, Woodruff’s sisters testified that while Woodruff was in the hospital, they pressed Woodruff about what happened before the crash. One sister recalled Woodruff telling them that she and Roberts were talking about his gallbladder surgery, prompting an objection from the prosecution.

Herron sustained the objection as hearsay and barred jurors from hearing the detail. Two doctors who evaluated Woodruff testified that they subsequently heard about the possible trigger from Woodruff or her sisters.

On appeal, the defense pointed to scores of instances in which prosecutors Antonio Tarantino and Brian Sugioka allegedly committed misconduct, largely in their commentary about the excluded evidence. Regarding the “gallbladder story,” they argued:

• Woodruff “went to these doctors to create a defense”

• Woodruff “remembered, only conveniently, after making appointments with doctors”

• The story was “fabricated by the defense, or by the defense witnesses”

Tarantino and Sugioka also misrepresented the facts of Woodruff’s medical condition, misstated the doctors’ testimony, gave their own personal opinions about the diagnosis and denigrated the defense.

“If you believe that, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you,” one of the prosecutors told jurors, referring to the gallbladder story.

“In closing arguments alone, only one page of the prosecution’s argument is free from prosecutorial misconduct,” public defender Leah Scaduto told the Court of Appeals panel during oral arguments.

The appellate judges observed Woodruff’s trial counsel had not objected to the alleged misconduct, meaning they could only reverse her convictions if the misconduct was so obvious that Herron should have intervened without an objection. But the panel seemed to agree the prosecutors clearly went too far.

“Franky, I’m concerned with some of the statements — not just some of the statements, but the volume of statements,” said Judge Matthew D. Grove. “In your view, were all the statements OK?”

Assistant Attorney General Fellow Allison S. Block, who wrote that there was no misconduct “at any point of the trial,” responded that the defense should have objected if they had a problem.

“I do want you to answer Judge Grove’s question,” cut in Judge Katharine E. Lum. “Are there any statements you concede were misconduct?”

Block admitted the prosecutors had made one “fleeting misstatement.”

The appellate panel ordered a new trial based on the exclusion of the gallbladder surgery testimony and the prosecutors’ actions. It also gave warnings about problematic conduct that should not be repeated at the next trial.

The case is People v. Woodruff.