Colorado’s second-highest court ruled on Thursday that a Jefferson County judge properly excluded a defendant’s written statement from his assault trial because a Westminster police officer did not accurately inform him of his right to counsel.

Under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona, law enforcement is required to inform a suspect of their rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney prior to interrogating them in custody. A failure to give a Miranda warning means the prosecution may not be able to use the defendant’s statements as evidence at trial.

A Jeffco jury convicted Colton Rain Star Shrader of assaulting another person after a recreational hockey game in August 2023. Shrader went to the hospital afterward and Officer Luke Hill arrived to place Shrader in custody. Upon taking Shrader to the police station, Hill asked Shrader for a written statement about the encounter.

“It’s completely voluntary,” said Hill. “Anything and everything that you can remember.” He added the statement would be reviewed by the prosecution and the defense.

“You’re saying this is voluntary? Like, should I talk to an attorney first?” responded Shrader.

“If you want to. That’s completely up to you,” said Hill.

After Shrader expressed confusion about what he should do, Hill gave a Miranda warning and asked Shrader if he wanted to write a statement.

“If I said I wanted to talk to an attorney, like, when would that happen?” wondered Shrader.

“That’s going to be up to you,” Hill said. He added Shrader could “make your phone call” for an attorney at the jail or “whenever they release you.”

Shrader decided he would write a statement after all.

Prior to trial, the defense asked District Court Judge Tamara S. Russell to bar prosecutors from using the statement, arguing Shrader never agreed to forfeit his right to counsel.

After a hearing, Russell said she was “conflicted” and “uncomfortable” with the interaction. 

“I don’t think the officer had any bad intent at all, and he explained everything to Mr. Shrader. But he handed him that piece of paper right away when he walked in for the statement,” she said. “Even though the request was not clear, I think that the officer should have explained to him that before he wrote a statement, he could have an attorney.”

Although jurors convicted Shrader despite the exclusion of his written statement, the district attorney’s office appealed Russell’s decision. It sought a ruling from the Court of Appeals that she misapplied the law to Shrader’s case, without any effect on his conviction.

“In the context of their exchange, it appears that Shrader was asking the officer if he should consult an attorney; that is not an invocation of the right to counsel,” wrote Colleen R. Lamb of the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office.

But a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals believed Hill had “downplayed” Shrader’s right to counsel by making it seem as if he were entitled to a lawyer at some point in the future, but not while he provided a statement.

“Hill’s nonresponsiveness is even more telling than Shrader’s confused demeanor. Rather than reiterating that Shrader could have counsel during any and all stages of their interaction, Hill suggested that a conversation with counsel could happen later — at the jail or after his release,” wrote Judge Terry Fox in the March 20 opinion.

She added that “regardless of whether Hill intended to mislead Shrader,” it was unclear whether Shrader actually understood his constitutional right to counsel.

Hill “rushed through the Miranda advisement and effectively shoved a paper and pen at Shrader to secure the written statement without fully and clearly answering Shrader’s questions,” Fox continued. “Just as we expect defendants to make an unequivocal invocation of counsel, it is equally fair for the public to expect law enforcement officers not to evade or mislead when answering questions concerning constitutional rights.”

The panel upheld Russell’s ruling.

The case is People v. Shrader.