Colorado’s second-highest court ordered a new trial on Thursday for a defendant whose 16-minute statement mid-trial, which had no basis in criminal procedure and was described by one judge as a “train wreck,” resulted in a constitutionally unfair proceeding.

Jefferson County prosecutors charged Riddick Amoako-Asiamah with large-scale marijuana cultivation or distribution based on the substantial amount of cannabis at his home. During the criminal proceedings, Amoako-Asiamah cycled through three defense attorneys due to conflict.

Eventually, he stated he was “not planning on” being represented by counsel.

The scheduled trial hit more roadblocks on account of Amoako-Asiamah, who:

• Entered the courtroom, then left

• Was arrested for failing to appear and declined a public defender appointment

• Changed his mind and requested a lawyer when the trial restarted days later

• Insisted on being taken back to his cell because “I’m not part of this trial”

• Was checked on by jail staff every hour while his trial was happening, in case he wanted to be there after all

On the second day of trial, Amoako-Asiamah came to the courtroom and, as the prosecution was presenting witnesses, asked to make a statement.

“You’re intending to — when I bring the jury in, you want to make a statement to them, not under oath, and not as part of closing, and then you would like to be let out of the courtroom and returned back to your cell voluntarily?” asked District Court Judge Jason Carrithers. “Am I understanding?”

“Yes,” said Amoako-Asiamah.

Carrithers warned him that the proposal would be “prejudicial to your case” and “highly irregular.” The prosecutor also objected, but Carrithers decided to let the statement occur. He brought the jury back in, told them Amoako-Asiamah was not under oath and what they were about to see was “not proper procedure, in terms of a court trial, but I am going to allow him to make that statement.”

Neither the prosecution, defense briefs nor the Court of Appeals’ opinion reprinted exactly what happened during the next 16 minutes. However, the various descriptions on appeal all provided the same general narrative:

• The statement was “entirely composed of commentary on being in custody, his former counsel and lack of an attorney, speedy trial, his absence from trial, and information outside of evidence,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Claire V. Collins

• “In fact, there wasn’t really a statement, it was simply a long string of partial phrases filled with the aforementioned objections and court rulings. Eventually the court asked the jury to leave during this travesty of justice,” wrote public defender Andrew C. Heher

• “It was a train wreck from then on once it happened. Nothing intelligible was articulated aside from the defendant looked horrible,” said Judge Timothy J. Schutz during oral arguments

• “It’s very unclear to me what he actually managed to say — not much — because of the interruptions,” said retired Supreme Court Justice Alex J. Martinez, who sat on the appellate panel at the chief justice’s assignment.

Judge W. Eric Kuhn, in the panel’s Aug. 7 opinion, characterized the proceeding as “rambling and incoherent, triggered over thirty objections from the prosecution, and contained numerous instances of Amoako-Asiamah arguing with the prosecutor and the court about what topics he was allowed to discuss. … The end result is a garbled record reflecting the trial court’s valiant, but ultimately futile, attempts to address the objections, keep Amoako-Asiamah within the bounds of trial procedure, and maintain control over the proceedings.”

Although Amoako-Asiamah made multiple arguments on appeal, the three-judge panel decided the entirety of the proceedings violated the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, revolving around the jury having witnessed the commotion.

“While Amoako-Asiamah undoubtedly kindled the flame, we cannot ignore the resulting blaze or conclude that it was entirely a result of his actions,” wrote Kuhn.

He stressed that Carrithers took “pains” to manage the difficult proceedings and was trying to give Amoako-Asiamah an opportunity to present his case by allowing the statement.

Nonetheless, what the jury saw was an empty defense table, no participation by the accused or his attorney, and the defendant appearing only briefly to scream and argue.

Moreover, wrote Kuhn, the statement was neither sworn testimony nor a closing argument, making it “outside the boundaries” of a criminal trial.

“When viewed alongside the other irregularities during the trial — such as the lack of counsel and Amoako-Asiamah’s absence from the proceedings — we cannot conclude that Amoako-Asiamah received a fundamentally fair trial, and thus due process,” he wrote.

The panel reversed Amoako-Asiamah’s convictions and 12-year prison sentence and ordered a new trial.

The case is People v. Amoako-Asiamah.