Colorado’s second-highest court reinstated the murder and child abuse charges on Thursday against a Fremont County defendant, reasoning that the former district attorney’s misconduct did not warrant dismissal of the charges.

A judge previously dismissed the criminal case against defendant William Jacobs after former elected District Attorney Linda Stanley spoke in derogatory terms about Jacobs to a television reporter.

As a result of those statements and other conduct, Stanley has since been disbarred. During her disciplinary proceedings, an expert witness deemed her out-of-court commentary “egregious.”

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel concluded that Stanley’s behavior did not rise to the level of “outrageous government conduct,” which is reserved for only the most “intolerable” behavior.

“We do not condone Stanley’s actions in this case. And while her conduct might be considered ‘outrageous’ in the ordinary sense, we conclude that it does not satisfy the stringent standard for finding outrageous government conduct as set forth in the case law,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris in the May 21 opinion.

Jacobs and Brook N. Crawford 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 Jacobs was a “live-in babysitter” who “knows what he did.” She added 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.”

Jacobs moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of outrageous government conduct. District Court Judge Kaitlin Turner agreed, finding Stanley’s comments created a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing (the) proceeding.” She did not believe changing the location of Jacobs’ trial was a viable alternative. A different judge also dismissed the criminal case against Crawford.

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 year, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld Stanley’s disbarment by 4-2, with the majority concluding her actions across multiple cases 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 Jacobs’s and Crawford’s prosecutions, arguing that her KRDO interview fell outside the narrow band of circumstances recognized as beyond the pale.

Last October, a different appellate panel revived Crawford’s prosecution, reasoning Stanley’s comments did not fall into the defined categories of outrageous government conduct. Those were reserved for instances where the government “creates or manufactures the crime” or engages in certain coercive conduct.

The panel hearing Jacobs’ case agreed. Harris noted Stanley’s televised comments occurred after the filing of charges, so the government was not involved in the “creation or commission” of the alleged crime.

“And we have not found, nor does Jacobs cite, any authority supporting the proposition that a dismissal for outrageous government conduct is the proper remedy when prosecutorial misconduct impinges on a defendant’s right to an impartial jury,” Harris wrote.

She added that the panel shared Turner’s concern that Stanley’s comments may have affected the potential jury pool in Fremont County.

“And as the district court pointed out, changing the venue to remedy the government’s improper conduct — over Jacobs’s objection — may not serve the interests of justice,” Harris continued.

However, she said the trial judge could address those concerns later. As possible solutions, Turner could authorize extensive jury selection, move the trial to a different place in the same jurisdiction, postpone the trial to allow attention to subside, or clearly instruct the jurors that they can only decide the case based on the evidence presented.

“And if those mechanisms cannot adequately protect Jacobs’s right to a fair trial, the court may consider other options at that time,” Harris concluded.

The case is People v. Jacobs.