An Arapahoe County judge violated a defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him by blocking the defense from asking a witness about her own pending criminal charges in the same jurisdiction, Colorado’s second-highest court ruled last week.

Prosecutors charged Jose Garcia Valdivia with multiple counts of assault and felony menacing. Garcia allegedly got into a fight with the victim inside an apartment, pulled a gun, and shot the victim in the finger while the two physically struggled.

Jurors acquitted Garcia on all counts except felony menacing. He did not testify, but the jury heard from the victim and one witness.

After the trial began, Garcia’s attorney informed District Court Judge Eric White that the witness, Jannet Salazar, was being prosecuted by the same district attorney’s office in a different case. The defense argued Salazar’s pending charges were grounds for cross-examination because she “has an incentive to try to not upset the district attorney’s office.” The prosecution disagreed.

White said that it did not appear the DA’s office had “explicitly made Ms. Salazar’s cooperation a condition of any plea or a condition of any favorable treatment.”

After Salazar’s attorney confirmed that the prosecution had offered no promises or benefits in Salazar’s case in exchange for her testimony in Garcia’s case, White told the defense it could not ask Salazar about her pending case in front of the jury.

Salazar proceeded to testify that Garcia struggled with the victim before the shooting. Shortly after the trial, Salazar pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in her case.

Garcia appealed, arguing it was important for jurors to assess Salazar’s credibility in light of her charges with the same DA’s office that was prosecuting him. While the appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals issued a precedent-setting decision holding that a witness’s criminal charge in the same jurisdiction is “always relevant” to that witness’s testimony.

The author of that decision, Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov, also wrote the April 16 opinion agreeing that Garcia deserved a new trial.

“Contrary to the trial court’s suggestion, defense counsel’s right to cross-examine Salazar did not hinge on whether she had spoken with a prosecutor at the District Attorney’s Office regarding benefits she might receive in her own case if she testified against Garcia,” he wrote.

Lipinsky elaborated that the victim’s own inconsistent story, the lack of physical evidence, and the fact that jurors largely acquitted Garcia suggested that Salazar’s testimony might have swayed the jury to convict on the menacing charge. If jurors had learned of her “significant incentive” to cooperate with the prosecution due to her own pending case, the outcome might have been different.

“Thus, had the trial court permitted defense counsel to disclose to the jury Salazar’s incentive to curry favor with the prosecution,” Lipinsky wrote, “the jury could have questioned Salazar’s veracity and concluded it could not convict Garcia based on (the victim’s) testimony alone.”

The case is People v. Garcia Valdivia.