The Colorado Supreme Court rejected a convicted defendant’s argument on Monday that Arapahoe County prosecutors unconstitutionally singled out him and another Black teenager for murder prosecutions as adults, while offering lenient plea deals to their two non-Black co-defendants.

Lloyd Chavez IV, a student at Cherokee Trail High School, died in May 2019 after four teenagers attempted to rob him during a meetup to purchase vaping supplies. Evidence pointed to Demarea Mitchell as the one who fatally shot Chavez, but jurors also convicted Kenneth Alfonso Gallegos of felony murder for his participation in the robbery.

The remaining two defendants cooperated with law enforcement, and Arapahoe County prosecutors refiled their charges in juvenile court. Those co-defendants, who were Hispanic or White, subsequently pleaded guilty and only served two years of juvenile incarceration.

Mitchell and Gallegos, in contrast, both received life sentences.

In a Feb. 2 opinion, the Supreme Court concluded Mitchell failed to show the prosecution’s actions had a discriminatory effect or were fueled by a discriminatory purpose. Specifically, the court observed the case against Mitchell differed in an important way from the cases of his non-Black co-defendants.

“Mitchell escalated the situation by confronting the victim with a loaded gun when the victim was walking away from the vehicle, and when the victim attempted to defend himself, Mitchell shot him in the chest,” wrote Justice Richard L. Gabriel. “In contrast, neither (of the non-Black defendants) did anything to escalate the robbery attempt in a way that resulted in the victim’s death. For this reason alone, Mitchell was not similarly situated to them.”

Mitchell originally sought to dismiss the charges on the grounds that prosecutors violated his equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. Allegedly, the inability to have his case transferred to juvenile court was based on Mitchell’s race.

District Court Judge Ben L. Leutwyler disagreed, noting Mitchell was not in an identical position as the two non-Black defendants.

“There is evidence that supports a finding that Mr. Mitchell is the participant who actually shot and killed Mr. Chavez,” he wrote at the time. “Consideration of that fact alone is sufficient to find that the defendant is not similarly situated to the individuals who drove to the scene but did not otherwise participate in the robbery and murder of Mr. Chavez.”

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed with Leutwyler’s reasoning that the prosecution’s differential treatment of Mitchell was justified, given his role as the apparent shooter. Moreover, the two non-Black defendants cooperated with prosecutors.

To the Supreme Court, Mitchell argued the co-defendants’ cooperation was actually proof of discrimination.

Prosecutors “provided the non-Black co-defendants plea bargains and they all pointed at my client,” defense attorney Patrick R. Henson told the justices during oral arguments. “And if they never gave him the opportunity and they only gave that opportunity to the non-Black defendants, that is some evidence of discriminatory effect.”

“Can you tell us whether Mr. Mitchell ever sought to cooperate?” asked Justice William W. Hood III.

“I have no record of it,” replied Henson, adding that he imagined any trial attorney would have pursued that option if it were available.

In his written brief, Henson cited statistics from Arapahoe County between 2012-2020 showing Black juveniles were likelier to be prosecuted as adults and likelier to receive prison sentences.

“My concern would be if you look broadly enough,” said Gabriel, “you can certainly look at the United States and find a minority population, the Black population, tends to be overrepresented in prisons. And you probably would see that everywhere.”

In the court’s opinion, Gabriel explained that defendants’ differing conduct and the strength of the evidence against them are factors that inform whether prosecutors are justified in treating cases differently. Mitchell’s role as the shooter, supported by multiple pieces of evidence, suggested the prosecution’s handling of his case was not race-based.

Further, the statistics about Black juvenile defendants were too general to establish discrimination.

“Although Mitchell’s statistical evidence focused on the disparate treatment experienced by Black adults and juveniles generally in courts throughout the United States, in Colorado, and in the Eighteenth Judicial District, the evidence did not include the facts underlying the cases involving non-Black defendants,” wrote Gabriel. “Nor did the evidence indicate the crimes charged in such cases or the result of those prosecutions. Without such information, we cannot determine whether these persons were similarly situated to Mitchell such that their disparate prosecutorial treatment was unjustified.”

The case is Mitchell v. People.