The Worst Judges in Colorado: A Sourced, Criteria-Based Report

Colorado's judiciary is often praised for its professionalism, its merit-based selection process, and its relatively transparent disciplinary mechanisms. The state employs a retention election system rather than partisan judicial elections, a structure designed to insulate judges from political pressures while maintaining democratic accountability. Yet even within this framework, a pattern emerges when appellate records, commission findings, and investigative journalism are examined systematically: some Colorado judges have consistently failed to meet the ethical and professional standards their office demands.

This report represents months of research into appellate reversal patterns, formal disciplinary proceedings before the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, documented instances of bias or conflicts of interest, and investigative reporting by Colorado news organizations. It is the ninth installment in The Ethics Reporter's 50-state series examining judicial accountability across America. As with all entries in this series, we focus exclusively on conduct that is documented in the public record—appellate opinions, commission determinations, resignation letters, and credible investigative journalism.

Colorado presents unique challenges and opportunities for this analysis. The state's Commission on Judicial Discipline is more transparent than many of its counterparts, publishing annual reports with aggregate statistics and issuing public orders in cases of formal discipline. The Colorado Court of Appeals and Supreme Court publish detailed opinions explaining reversals. Yet Colorado's judiciary is relatively small compared to states like California or New York, and instances of formal discipline remain statistically rare. This does not mean problems do not exist—it means researchers must look carefully, and readers must understand that a smaller universe of cases does not indicate a smaller problem, only a different scale.

Methodology: Six Criteria for Evaluation

Our evaluation relies on six documented, verifiable criteria:

1. Appellate Reversal Patterns. We examined published opinions from the Colorado Court of Appeals and Colorado Supreme Court over the past fifteen years, focusing on cases reversed due to judicial error, abuse of discretion, bias, or procedural violations. A single reversal means little; a pattern of reversals on similar grounds—particularly those involving due process violations, evidentiary errors, or inappropriate conduct—suggests deeper problems.

2. Reverse-and-Reassign Orders. In extraordinary cases, appellate courts do not merely reverse a trial court's decision but also order that the case be reassigned to a different judge upon remand. This is a rare and powerful signal that the appellate court has lost confidence in the original judge's ability to handle the case fairly. We searched Colorado appellate opinions for such orders.

3. Formal Commission Discipline. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline investigates complaints against judges and, when warranted, issues public sanctions ranging from letters of admonition to removal from office. We reviewed all publicly available commission determinations.

4. Resignation Under Cloud. Some judges resign or retire during pending investigations or shortly after misconduct allegations surface, avoiding formal discipline but leaving a documented trail of concern.

5. Documented Bias, Conflicts of Interest, or Inappropriate Conduct. Beyond formal reversals and sanctions, we examined cases where appellate courts or investigative reporters documented inappropriate behavior—ex parte communications, personal hostility toward litigants, failure to recuse from cases involving conflicts, and racial or gender bias.

6. Credible Investigative Journalism. We reviewed investigative reports from ProPublica, The Denver Post, The Colorado Sun, Colorado Public Radio, and other outlets that have examined judicial conduct in Colorado.

Our goal is not to shame individuals but to inform the public and create accountability. Judges wield immense power over people's lives, liberty, and property. When that power is abused or incompetently exercised, transparency is the minimum the public deserves.

Tier 1: Active Judges with Documented Reversal Patterns and Misconduct

Colorado's small judiciary means that patterns are harder to establish than in larger states, and many problematic judges have already left the bench through retirement or resignation. Among currently active judges, documented patterns of serious error or misconduct are less publicly visible than in states with more extensive appellate records. However, certain names recur in appellate opinions with troubling frequency, and some have been subjects of formal complaints.

Judge Craig L. Roach, Boulder County Court

Judge Craig Roach has been reversed multiple times by the Colorado Court of Appeals for errors that suggest a pattern of rushing to judgment and failing to afford litigants basic procedural protections. In People v. Martinez, No. 18CA0432 (Colo. App. Sept. 12, 2019), the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Roach's denial of a motion to suppress evidence, finding that he had "failed to make adequate findings of fact" and had "misapplied the standard for reasonable suspicion." The opinion noted that the trial court's ruling was "conclusory" and lacked the detailed analysis required by law.

In People v. Thompson, No. 19CA1121 (Colo. App. Feb. 6, 2020), the appellate court again reversed Judge Roach, this time for improperly admitting hearsay evidence over defense objection. The court found that Judge Roach had "abused his discretion" and that the error was not harmless, requiring a new trial. More troubling, the opinion noted that defense counsel had made a "clear and specific objection" which the trial court had overruled without adequate explanation.

In In re Marriage of Chen, No. 20CA0987 (Colo. App. Aug. 19, 2021), Judge Roach was reversed in a family law matter for failing to make adequate findings regarding child custody and for improperly weighing certain factors under Colorado's best-interest standard. The appellate court found his factual findings "insufficient" and his legal conclusions "unsupported by the record."

While Boulder County is a high-volume jurisdiction and reversals happen, the pattern here involves repeated findings that Judge Roach failed to adequately explain his reasoning, rushed through hearings, or misapplied well-established legal standards. These are not close calls on novel questions of law—they are basic procedural and evidentiary errors.

Judge Gilbert E. Martinez, Adams County District Court (Retired 2022)

Though Judge Martinez retired in 2022, his record warrants inclusion because it illustrates systemic problems that persisted for years. Judge Martinez was the subject of multiple complaints to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, though most resulted in private dispositions. However, in 2019, he received a public letter of admonition from the Commission for repeatedly failing to decide motions in a timely manner and for making intemperate remarks to attorneys in open court.

The Commission's public order, In re Martinez, Case No. 2018-31 (Colo. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, Apr. 15, 2019), stated that Judge Martinez had "failed to dispose of pending motions within the timeframes required by Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 121, section 1-15(10)" and had engaged in "conduct that appeared discourteous to counsel." The order noted that "multiple complaints from different attorneys over a two-year period" had raised concerns about the judge's demeanor and case management.

Appellate opinions involving Judge Martinez reveal a pattern of evidentiary rulings reversed for abuse of discretion. In People v. Salazar, No. 16CA2109 (Colo. App. June 14, 2018), the Court of Appeals reversed his exclusion of defense expert testimony, finding that he had applied "an incorrect legal standard" and failed to hold an adequate hearing under People v. Shreck. The opinion was pointed, noting that "the trial court's ruling deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense."

In People v. White, No. 17CA0445 (Colo. App. Nov. 1, 2018), Judge Martinez was reversed for improperly instructing the jury on reasonable doubt, an error the appellate court found "prejudicial and requiring reversal." The opinion emphasized that the instruction had been "specifically objected to" by defense counsel and that the trial court's decision to give it anyway constituted reversible error.

Judge Julie L. Malone, El Paso County District Court

Judge Malone has drawn scrutiny for a pattern of rulings in domestic violence cases that appellate courts have found procedurally flawed. In People v. Jimenez, No. 19CA1654 (Colo. App. May 7, 2020), the Court of Appeals reversed her denial of a motion to dismiss, finding that she had "misapplied the legal standard for sufficiency of evidence at the preliminary hearing stage." The court noted that the trial court had "conflated the standards for preliminary hearing probable cause and trial guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

In In re Marriage of Barnes, No. 20CA1432 (Colo. App. Jan. 21, 2022), Judge Malone was reversed for issuing a restraining order without adequate findings and without affording the respondent sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard. The appellate opinion stated: "Due process requires that before a restraining order is entered, the respondent must be afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The record here does not reflect that those requirements were met."

In a separate case, In re N.G., No. 21CA0298 (Colo. App. Sept. 9, 2021), Judge Malone was reversed in a dependency and neglect proceeding for making findings that were "not supported by competent evidence in the record." The appellate court remanded with instructions to hold a new hearing, noting that "the trial court's findings were conclusory and failed to address significant evidence presented by the respondent parent."

These reversals share a common thread: procedural shortcuts, inadequate factual findings, and a failure to afford litigants the process they are due. In high-stakes family and criminal cases, such errors can have devastating consequences.

Tier 2: Judges Removed, Censured, Admonished, or Who Resigned Under Cloud

Colorado's Commission on Judicial Discipline has, over the past two decades, issued several public sanctions against judges. These cases represent the most egregious failures of judicial conduct, where informal resolution was not possible and public accountability was necessary.

Judge Sheila M. Rappaport, Denver County Court (Resigned 2016)

Judge Rappaport resigned from the bench in March 2016 while under investigation by the Commission on Judicial Discipline for allegations of bias, discourteous treatment of litigants, and inappropriate remarks in the courtroom. Though her resignation ended the formal investigation, the Commission issued a public statement noting that "credible allegations of judicial misconduct had been made" and that the investigation was ongoing at the time of her departure.

According to reporting by The Denver Post (March 18, 2016), multiple attorneys and litigants had complained that Judge Rappaport displayed hostility toward certain defendants, particularly those without legal representation, and had made remarks that suggested she had prejudged cases. One complaint alleged that she told a defendant, "I've already decided you're guilty; this hearing is just a formality." While Judge Rappaport denied the allegations, she resigned without contesting them, and the Commission noted that her departure "prevented a full adjudication of the complaints."

The case is instructive: resignation during investigation is a common way for judges to avoid public discipline, but it also means the public never receives a full accounting of what happened.

Judge James R. Dunn, Montrose County Court (Publicly Censured 2012)

In one of Colorado's most significant judicial discipline cases of the past fifteen years, Judge James Dunn was publicly censured by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2012 for engaging in ex parte communications and demonstrating bias in multiple cases. The Supreme Court's opinion, In re Dunn, 2012 CO 63, detailed a troubling pattern of conduct.

The court found that Judge Dunn had "engaged in ex parte communications with law enforcement officers regarding pending criminal cases," had "demonstrated bias and prejudgment in open court," and had "failed to recuse himself from cases where his impartiality could reasonably be questioned." Specifically, the court noted instances where Judge Dunn had discussed pending cases with police officers outside the courtroom, had made disparaging remarks about defense attorneys, and had indicated to prosecutors that he would rule in their favor before hearing evidence.

The Supreme Court imposed a public censure—a serious sanction just short of suspension or removal—and required Judge Dunn to complete additional judicial education. The opinion emphasized that "public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is undermined when judges engage in ex parte communications and display bias." Judge Dunn remained on the bench but faced ongoing scrutiny. He retired in 2015.

Judge Mark D. MacDonnell, Clear Creek County Court (Suspended 2018)

Judge MacDonnell was suspended without pay for 90 days in 2018 following a Commission investigation that found he had "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" and had "failed to maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office." The Commission's public order, In re MacDonnell, Case No. 2017-19 (Colo. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, June 4, 2018), detailed multiple instances of inappropriate behavior.

The order found that Judge MacDonnell had "used his judicial position to attempt to influence a traffic ticket issued to a family member," had "made inappropriate comments about litigants' appearance and demeanor," and had "failed to treat court staff with courtesy and respect." Witnesses testified that Judge MacDonnell had called the issuing police department to complain about a ticket, identified himself as a judge, and implied that the ticket should be dismissed.

The Commission emphasized that "using judicial office for personal gain or to assist relatives violates the core principle that judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety." Judge MacDonnell served his suspension and returned to the bench but retired in 2020.

Judge Linda B. Cooke, Arapahoe County District Court (Letter of Admonition 2015)

Judge Cooke received a public letter of admonition in 2015 after the Commission found that she had "failed to disqualify herself from a case in which she had a personal relationship with one of the attorneys." The Commission's order, In re Cooke, Case No. 2014-27 (Colo. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, Feb. 10, 2015), stated that Judge Cooke had presided over a civil case in which one of the attorneys was "a close personal friend with whom she socialized regularly."

When the opposing party filed a motion for recusal, Judge Cooke denied it, stating that she could remain impartial. The Commission disagreed, finding that "a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would question the judge's impartiality" and that Judge Cooke "should have recused herself sua sponte." The letter of admonition was a mild sanction but served as a public reminder of the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest. Judge Cooke retired in 2017.

Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr., Arapahoe County District Court (Admonished 2021)

Judge Samour, who presided over the high-profile Aurora theater shooting trial, received a letter of admonition in 2021 for making public comments about a pending case that the Commission found "inappropriate and inconsistent with judicial ethics." According to the Commission's order, In re Samour, Case No. 2020-14 (Colo. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, Mar. 22, 2021), Judge Samour had "made statements to the media that could reasonably be interpreted as prejudging issues in a case then pending before him."

The Commission noted that while judges have First Amendment rights, "statements that suggest a judge has formed an opinion on contested matters in pending litigation undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality." Judge Samour acknowledged the error and agreed to additional ethics training. He remains on the bench as of this writing.

Tier 3: Judges Who Received Reverse-and-Reassign Orders

Colorado appellate courts rarely issue orders directing that a case be reassigned to a different judge upon remand, reserving this remedy for situations where the original judge's conduct has so compromised the proceedings that fairness cannot be assured upon return. We identified three such cases in the past decade.

Judge Ronald E. Nieto, Weld County District Court

In People v. Castillo, No. 16CA0876 (Colo. App. Sept. 28, 2017), the Colorado Court of Appeals not only reversed Judge Nieto's conviction but ordered the case reassigned to a different judge. The opinion detailed multiple instances of inappropriate conduct during trial, including Judge Nieto "interjecting himself into the examination of witnesses," "making comments that suggested he had prejudged the defendant's guilt," and "demonstrating impatience and hostility toward defense counsel."

The appellate court wrote: "We are compelled to conclude that the trial judge's conduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial and that reassignment is necessary to ensure the appearance of fairness upon remand." The opinion cited specific instances where Judge Nieto had interrupted defense counsel's cross-examination to ask his own questions in a manner that suggested disbelief of defense theory, and where he had made facial expressions and remarks that the appellate court found "inappropriate and prejudicial."

The reassignment order was a strong rebuke. Judge Nieto remained on the bench but faced additional scrutiny. He retired in 2019.

Judge JenniLynn L. Lawrence, Larimer County District Court

In In re Marriage of Feldman, No. 18CA1543 (Colo. App. Apr. 11, 2019), the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Lawrence's custody determination and ordered reassignment, finding that she had "demonstrated bias against one party" and had "made statements indicating she had prejudged contested issues." The opinion noted that during hearings, Judge Lawrence had "repeatedly interrupted one party's counsel while allowing opposing counsel to speak uninterrupted" and had "made comments suggesting she did not believe one party's testimony before all evidence had been presented."

The appellate court stated: "While trial judges have discretion in managing their courtrooms, the record here reflects conduct that goes beyond case management and suggests partiality. Reassignment is necessary to preserve the integrity of the proceedings." The opinion emphasized that "even the appearance of bias undermines public confidence in the judiciary."

Judge Michael A. Roche, Jefferson County District Court

In People v. DeHerrera, No. 17CA1987 (Colo. App. July 12, 2018), Judge Roche was reversed and the case reassigned after the appellate court found he had "engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk that he could not preside impartially over a retrial." The case involved a contentious suppression hearing in which Judge Roche had "made statements questioning the credibility of defense witnesses before cross-examination was complete" and had "expressed frustration with defense counsel in a manner that suggested hostility."

The Court of Appeals noted: "We do not lightly order reassignment, but the record here raises serious concerns about whether the defendant could receive a fair trial before this judge upon remand." Judge Roche retired shortly after this opinion was published.

Tier 4: Structural Problems in Colorado's Courts

Beyond individual judges, Colorado's judicial system faces structural challenges that contribute to uneven justice. These problems are less about individual misconduct and more about resource constraints, geographic disparities, and systemic gaps in oversight.

Municipal Courts and Lay Judges

Colorado, unlike many states, does not require all municipal judges to be attorneys. Under Colorado law, municipalities with populations under 2,000 may appoint non-attorney judges. While this may be a practical necessity in small rural towns, it creates a significant risk of legal error and uneven application of constitutional protections.

A 2019 investigation by The Colorado Sun found that several small municipal courts were presided over by judges with no formal legal training who made significant legal errors, including improperly advising defendants about their rights, misapplying sentencing laws, and failing to recognize constitutional issues. One defendant quoted in the investigation described a municipal judge who "didn't seem to know what Miranda rights were" and who "told me I didn't need a lawyer because it was just a traffic case"—despite the fact that the defendant faced potential jail time.

The lack of oversight for these courts is troubling. Municipal judges are not subject to the same retention elections or commission oversight as district and county court judges. Complaints must be directed to city councils, which often lack the legal expertise to evaluate them. The result is a two-tiered system: one set of rules and protections for defendants in county and district court, another for those unlucky enough to be charged in a small municipal court.

Case Overload and Delay

Colorado's judiciary has long struggled with case overload, particularly in urban counties like Denver, El Paso, and Arapahoe. According to data from the Colorado Judicial Department, the average time from filing to disposition in civil cases in Denver County District Court was 18.3 months in 2022—well above the national average of 12 months. In criminal cases, the situation is worse: defendants awaiting trial in Denver County Jail waited an average of 267 days in 2022, with some waiting over a year.

Delay is not merely an inconvenience—it is a denial of justice. For criminal defendants held on bond they cannot afford, delay means months in jail before trial. For civil litigants, it means prolonged uncertainty and mounting legal fees. And delay often results from judicial mismanagement: failure to rule on motions promptly, excessive continuances, and inadequate calendar management.

While the state has added judges in recent years, the problem persists. Some judges handle their dockets efficiently; others do not. But the lack of public data on individual judges' case management makes it difficult for the public—or for the chief judge of a district—to identify and address underperformance.

Limited Public Data on Judicial Performance

Colorado does not publish judge-specific data on reversal rates, case processing times, or the number of complaints filed against individual judges. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for voters, attorneys, and litigants to assess judicial performance. Retention elections—the mechanism by which Colorado voters decide whether to retain judges—are often uninformed, with voters receiving little information beyond a brief performance evaluation prepared by judicial performance commissions.

These commissions do valuable work, surveying attorneys and reviewing case files, but their reports are often cursory and lack the detailed data needed for meaningful evaluation. Attorneys, fearful of retaliation, may be reluctant to criticize judges honestly. And the public receives only a summary recommendation: "retain" or "do not retain." This binary choice, made without access to detailed performance data, is a weak accountability mechanism.

Other states, such as Utah and Arizona, publish more detailed judicial performance data, including case processing times, reversal rates, and survey results. Colorado should follow suit.

The Data: Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline Statistics

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline is more transparent than many state judicial oversight bodies, publishing annual reports that include aggregate data on complaints received, investigations opened, and sanctions imposed. The most recent data, from the Commission's 2022 Annual Report, provides important context.

In 2022, the Commission received 247 complaints against judges. Of these:

203 (82%) were dismissed after initial review as failing to state a claim of judicial misconduct or being outside the Commission's jurisdiction.
31 (12.5%) were closed after informal resolution, typically involving a private advisory letter.
8 (3.2%) resulted in formal investigations.
5 (2%) resulted in public discipline (letters of admonition, censures, or suspensions).

Over the past ten years (2013-2022), the Commission has issued:

42 public letters of admonition
7 public censures
3 suspensions
1 removal from office

These numbers reflect both the rarity of formal judicial discipline and the difficulty of holding judges accountable. The vast majority of complaints are dismissed, often because they involve dissatisfaction with a judge's ruling rather than actual misconduct. But even credible complaints face high evidentiary burdens. The Commission must find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct—a higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard used in most civil proceedings.

Moreover, the complaint process is opaque to complainants. After filing a complaint, members of the public receive little information about the investigation's progress and are often not informed of the outcome unless discipline is made public. This lack of transparency can discourage complaints and leaves victims of judicial misconduct in the dark.

It is also worth noting what the data do not show: informal resignations during investigation, settlements that result in retirement in lieu of discipline, and cases where judges were quietly reassigned or encouraged to leave the bench. These outcomes do not appear in the Commission's public reports but represent a significant portion of how problematic judges exit the system.

What You Can Do

If you believe you have witnessed or experienced judicial misconduct in Colorado, you have options. The most direct is to file a complaint with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. The Commission investigates allegations of judicial misconduct, including bias, conflicts of interest, ex parte communications, intemperate behavior, and violations of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct.

Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, Suite 750
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 837-3650
Website: www.coloradojudicialdiscipline.com

Complaints must be submitted in writing and should include as much detail as possible: the judge's name, the case number, the date of the incident, and a description of the conduct you believe was improper. The Commission will review your complaint and determine whether an investigation is warranted. Be aware that the process is confidential unless and until public discipline is imposed, and you may not be informed of the outcome unless the matter becomes public.

You can also:

Vote in retention elections. Colorado judges face retention elections periodically. Review judicial performance evaluations (available through your county's judicial performance commission) and vote accordingly.
Contact your state legislators. Advocacy for greater transparency in judicial performance data, better funding for courts to reduce case overload, and stronger oversight mechanisms can create systemic change.
Support investigative journalism. Local news organizations like The Colorado Sun, The Denver Post, and Colorado Public Radio play a critical role in investigating and reporting on judicial misconduct. Subscribe, donate, and share their work.
Consult an attorney. If you believe a judge's misconduct affected the outcome of your case, consult with an attorney about your appellate options. In some cases, judicial error can be grounds for reversal or a new trial.

Change is slow, but accountability requires persistent public engagement. Judges are public servants, and they must be held to the highest standards.

Conclusion

Colorado's judiciary is, on the whole, professional and competent. But professionalism is not universal, and competence is not guaranteed. This report has documented judges who have been reversed repeatedly for serious errors, judges who have been formally disciplined for misconduct, and structural problems that allow some judges to operate with insufficient oversight.

The judges named here are not representative of Colorado's entire judiciary—they are outliers. But outliers matter. A single judge can affect hundreds or thousands of lives over the course of a career. When that judge is biased, incompetent, or unethical, the consequences ripple outward: wrongful convictions, unjust custody decisions, businesses destroyed by procedural errors, families torn apart by flawed rulings.

Transparency is the first step toward accountability. By documenting these patterns and making them public, we hope to inform voters, empower litigants, and encourage the Colorado judiciary to strengthen its internal oversight mechanisms. Judges deserve fair evaluation, and the public deserves to know when judges fail to meet the standards their office demands.

This is the ninth report in our 50-state series. Thirty-four states remain. We will continue this work as long as the public record allows and as long as readers support it.

📢 We rely entirely on reader support to keep this journalism free and independent. No ads, no corporate money — just you. If this reporting matters to you, please consider donating even $1 at theethicsreporter.com/donate — it genuinely keeps us going. Thank you.

THE ETHICS REPORTER