{"id":237499,"date":"2026-04-06T18:46:22","date_gmt":"2026-04-06T18:46:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/237499\/"},"modified":"2026-04-06T18:46:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T18:46:22","slug":"el-paso-county-defendants-speedy-trial-rights-violated-colorado-justices-find-in-overturning-convictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/237499\/","title":{"rendered":"El Paso County defendant’s speedy trial rights violated, Colorado justices find in overturning convictions"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Colorado Supreme Court concluded on Monday that an El Paso County prosecutor made an unjustified decision to file a mid-case appeal, pushing the trial beyond the legal deadline and requiring that the defendant\u2019s convictions be overturned.<\/p>\n

In Colorado, the government generally must bring criminal defendants to trial within 6 months of a not-guilty plea, as part of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Violating that deadline results in dismissal of the charges and a bar on further prosecution.<\/p>\n

Khristina Phillips argued her misdemeanor convictions could not stand because the prosecution pursued a mid-case, or \u201cinterlocutory,\u201d appeal that was baseless. Specifically, while the rules authorize interlocutory appeals when a judge \u201csuppresses\u201d evidence, the trial judge had only blocked the prosecution from introducing uncurated evidence he found irrelevant and overly harmful.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe word \u2018suppress\u2019 in criminal motions practice is a specialized term denoting the exclusion from trial of any evidence procured illegally, typically in violation of the defendant\u2019s constitutional rights or protections,\u201d wrote Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. in the April 6 opinion<\/a>. \u201cThe county court judge did not preclude any evidence that was illegally obtained, let alone evidence allegedly collected in violation of Phillips\u2019s constitutional rights or protections. Far from it. The judge stated, no less than five times, that he was not suppressing (it).\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Phillips stood accused of child abuse and operating a child care facility without a license. The prosecution filed two interlocutory\u00a0appeals during Phillips\u2019 proceedings. First, it challenged County Court Judge Steven Katzman\u2019s decision to suppress part of Phillips\u2019 videotaped interrogation with a detective. The decision was reversed and the time it took to resolve the appeal pushed back the speedy trial deadline.<\/p>\n

Then, at the beginning of the trial, Katzman balked at the prosecution\u2019s intent to play the entirety of Phillips\u2019 video interrogation. He ordered that only certain relevant clips be played. Under the belief that Katzman was again suppressing the interrogation, Senior Deputy District Attorney Doyle Baker decided to file another interlocutory appeal in the middle of jury selection, triggering an end to the trial.<\/p>\n

A district judge reviewed the appeal and ultimately dismissed it. By that time, Phillips\u2019 speedy trial deadline had passed. However, because Katzman concluded the second appeal was in \u201cgood faith,\u201d the time it took to resolve the issue would be excluded \u2014 as it was with the first appeal\u00a0\u2014\u00a0and the government would essentially receive an extension.<\/p>\n

Phillips went to trial again in December 2023, and the jury convicted her. Phillips challenged her convictions, arguing once again that the prosecution\u2019s improper second appeal violated the speedy trial deadline.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe record demonstrates,\u201d wrote then-District Court Judge David A. Gilbert in upholding the convictions, that the prosecution was \u201coperating in good faith in deciding to file an interlocutory appeal on the belief that they had a strong claim that the Court acted without authority in excluding the evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

But during oral arguments to the Supreme Court<\/a>, the justices suggested it was unreasonable for the prosecution to pursue a second interlocutory appeal on the grounds that Katzman was suppressing evidence.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe county court judge had so much patience trying to explain repeatedly, \u2018I\u2019m not suppressing this evidence,’\u201d said Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter. \u201cThere were, like, teaching moments at times. And the (prosecutor) was just not getting it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere wasn\u2019t a motion to suppress. It was the prosecution\u2019s attempt to introduce something, and they didn\u2019t get their way,\u201d added Justice Brian D. Boatright.<\/p>\n

\"ColoradoColorado Supreme Court Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter speaks to students at Pine Creek High School in Colorado Springs on Thursday, Nov. 17, 2022. Parker Seibold, The Gazette.<\/p>\n

Samour, in the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion, wrote that there was no \u201carguable merit\u201d to the appeal because Katzman clearly advised the prosecution that his decision was based on the rules of evidence, not on a constitutional violation warranting suppression. A ruling for the prosecution, added Samour, would green-light many immediate appeals of routine evidentiary decisions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis, in turn, would all but hand prosecutors a blank check,\u201d he wrote, \u201cbased on any unfavorable evidentiary ruling. Of course, that would be an absurd result, and we must eschew interpretations that lead to absurd result.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because Phillips\u2019 speedy trial rights were violated, the Supreme Court overturned her convictions and ordered her case permanently dismissed.<\/p>\n

The case is\u00a0Phillips v. People.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Colorado Supreme Court concluded on Monday that an El Paso County prosecutor made an unjustified decision to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":195477,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[26106,138,1060,140,139,91346,26108,91347,91348,26109,91349],"class_list":["post-237499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-el-paso","tag-colorado-supreme-court","tag-el-paso","tag-el-paso-county","tag-el-paso-headlines","tag-el-paso-news","tag-interlocutory-appeal","tag-judge-david-gilbert","tag-judge-steven-katzman","tag-justice-brian-boatright","tag-justice-carlos-samour","tag-justice-maria-berkenkotter"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237499\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/195477"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}