Colorado’s second-highest court ordered a new sex assault trial for a defendant on Thursday after concluding a Weld County judge permitted a biased juror to serve.

Prosecutors charged Jeremy Black with multiple counts of sexual assault on a child, alleging he abused a girl beginning when she was approximately seven years old. She disclosed the allegations when she was 14. A jury convicted Black and he received a sentence of 72 years to life in prison.

During jury selection, a man identified as Juror R noted in his questionnaire that he had doubts about his ability to be fair and impartial in the case. Specifically, he indicated he would be biased toward the alleged victim.

In all, Juror R made further statements indicating he struggled with being impartial:

• “I just think that sexually assaulting a child is disgusting and the child wouldn’t make something like that up”

• “I think that would be my first instinct personally” to believe the child

Juror R also disclosed his own sister, when she was 14, was the victim of sexual abuse:

• “She would never lie about something like that, and that’s kind of my example in this case with just what I’ve grown up with”

• “I think I would just kind of make — kind of just remember my sister”

District Court Judge Vincente G. Vigil asked Juror R if he would automatically assume a witness “around that same age” would be telling the truth. 

“I think it would be my first instinct,” responded Juror R.

The defense moved to dismiss Juror R for bias. Vigil believed some of Juror R’s answers were not “terribly clear.” Instead, he opted to keep going with jury selection to see what else Juror R said. Although Juror R continued to respond to other questions asked of the jury pool, no one revisited his statements about assuming the victim was telling the truth.

Ultimately, Vigil denied the defense’s motion based on the “context of his additional answers.” Juror R served on the jury.

On appeal, Black argued he should receive a new trial because Juror R “maintained his tendency to believe a child.” The government countered that Juror R’s answers were not clear indications of bias.

“And though his experience with his sister influenced him, assuming the truth of a victim’s testimony would merely be ‘his first instinct’ but not his final judgment,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Fellow Lane Towery.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed with Black.

“Juror R’s final statement to the trial court,” wrote Judge Stephanie Dunn in the May 29 opinion, “was that, given his sister’s experience, his first instinct would be to believe a child’s sexual abuse claim made when the child was around the same age his sister was when she was inappropriately touched.”

Dunn added that Vigil should have dismissed Juror R when he could not provide assurances he would be fair.

Even if Juror R suggested at times he could follow the law, “he never equivocated on the fact that he believed his sister was touched inappropriately, that she would not lie about that, and that he believed her experience would make him an unfair juror,” she concluded.

The case is People v. Black.