Colorado’s second-highest court last week reversed a man’s sexual assault convictions because a Douglas County judge allowed a biased juror to serve.

Jurors convicted Dennis Floyd Ladd of multiple sex offenses in 2022 and he received an indefinite sentence of at least 25 years. During jury selection, his lawyer asked the jury pool if they would hold it against Ladd if he chose to exercise his constitutional right not to testify.

One person said it “makes it look really questionable” if Ladd remained silent. Another juror, identified as Juror T, acknowledged he was not permitted to infer Ladd’s guilt if Ladd did not tell his side of the story.

However, “I think if I had to lean one direction or another, it’s not neutral,” Juror T continued. “You know, there’s a small — it would create a small gray area for me.”

“When you say gray area, do you mean like an inference of guilt?” the defense attorney asked.

“Yeah,” said Juror T. He elaborated that if he caught his two kids fighting in the living room and only one told him what had happened, he would “lean” towards the testifying child.

The defense attempted to remove Juror T for cause, pointing to the man’s indication he would hold Ladd’s silence against him. The prosecution objected, claiming there “was no follow-up” about Juror T’s ability to follow the law.

In her ruling, District Court Judge Theresa Slade appeared to confuse Juror T with other members of the jury pool before refusing to excuse him. Juror T ended up serving on Ladd’s jury.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals subsequently agreed with Ladd that Juror T’s responses suggested he would not be able to follow the law as instructed.

“Juror T plainly and directly agreed when asked if he would use Ladd’s silence against him by inferring guilt from Ladd’s decision not to testify,” wrote Judge Stephanie Dunn in the Oct. 24 opinion. “And because neither the prosecutor nor the court asked any clarifying questions on this point, Juror T never assured the court that he could set aside his clearly expressed view and apply the law as instructed.”

The panel ordered a new trial. Although Ladd alleged a second juror was also biased, the Court of Appeals did not address that claim.

The case is People v. Ladd.