Colorado’s second-highest court reinstated the criminal charges in a Fremont County child abuse case on Thursday, acknowledging the elected district attorney’s public comments about the defendant were “inappropriate” but did not rise to the level of triggering dismissal.

Last year, a judge dismissed the case against Brook N. Crawford after then-District Attorney Linda Stanley spoke in derogatory terms about Crawford to a television reporter. For those statements and other conduct, Stanley has since been disbarred. During her disciplinary proceedings, an expert witness deemed her out-of-court commentary “egregious.”

However, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel concluded that dismissing a case for outrageous conduct is only acceptable when the government either “creates or manufactures the crime” or engages in certain coercive conduct.

“Regardless of how inappropriate Stanley’s public comments were, there are only two situations in which outrageous government conduct justifies the sanction of dismissal, and Crawford’s situation does not fall under either,” wrote Judge Sueanna P. Johnson in the Oct. 2 opinion.

Crawford and William Jacobs began dating in 2023 and, according to the prosecution’s allegations, Jacobs would sometimes watch Crawford’s 10-month-old child. In May 2023, the child became unresponsive and died from his brain bleed injuries.

Prosecutors charged Crawford with child abuse and cruelty to animals, and Jacobs was charged separately.

Shortly afterward, Stanley participated in an interview with KRDO reporter Sean Rice, in which she spoke about the case. Stanley said Crawford’s “live-in babysitter” meant she “doesn’t have to worry about anything,” that there was perhaps a “prior incident with that baby,” and that Jacobs “is watching that baby so he can get laid, that’s it.”

Due to the interview, all of the judges in Stanley’s jurisdiction recused and Crawford’s case moved to Pueblo County. District Court Judge Thomas Flesher determined it was no longer possible to “adequately maintain the fairness of the proceeding” and he dismissed the case.

Separately, leaders in the state’s district attorney association reported Stanley for misconduct after learning of her interview. At a disciplinary hearing, former Attorney General John Suthers called the statements “egregious” and former Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett called them a fireable offense if a line prosecutor made them.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld Stanley’s disbarment by 4-2, with the majority concluding her actions — which resulted in other dismissed cases beyond Crawford’s — meant she “abused her position as elected DA, seriously impeding the rights of defendants, the right to justice for alleged victims, and the right of Coloradans to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of alleged perpetrators of serious crimes.”

Meanwhile, Stanley’s office asked the Court of Appeals to reinstate Crawford’s prosecution, arguing her KRDO interview fell outside the narrow band of circumstances recognized as beyond the pale.

“Outrageous government conduct is a deliberately wide net, designed to protect due process rights in extreme situations. There are specific analyses for more common situations, like entrapment or prosecutorial misconduct,” responded defense attorney Joseph Chase. “But there will always be novel circumstances that can amount to outrageous government conduct. Narrowing the scope of such claims would remove a broad and necessary protection when, as here, government conduct does not fall into a previously litigated category of claim but could still be found outrageous enough to violate due process.”

But the appellate panel declined to expand the recognized categories of damaging conduct to include Stanley’s media statements. Johnson also noted there were other options for preventing an unfair trial to Crawford.

“Among other things, the defendant could seek a change of venue on grounds that (1) the pretrial publicity was ‘so massive, pervasive, and prejudicial as to create a presumption of public bias,'” she wrote, “or (2) the defendant suffered actual prejudice by proving ‘a nexus between pretrial publicity and a panel of partial jurors.'”

She added that Stanley’s professional discipline was a separate issue. Ultimately, because Stanley “did not assist with manufacturing the conduct underlying the charged offenses, nor did her statements attempt to invade an attorney-client relationship,” there were not grounds to dismiss the case.

The case is People v. Crawford.