Peo v. Jacobs

── Peo v. Jacobs ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 24CA1052 Peo v Jacobs 05-21-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA1052 Fremont County District Court No. 23CR191 Honorable Kaitlin B. Turner, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Jacobs, Defendant-Appellee. ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division II Opinion by JUDGE HARRIS Fox and Schutz, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 21, 2026 Jeffrey D. Lindsey, District Attorney, Wendy S. Owens, Deputy District Attorney, Cañon City, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Julia Chamberlin, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee ¶1 The District Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial District appeals the district court’s order dismissing the criminal charges brought against defendant, William Jacobs, based on outrageous government conduct by the elected district attorney. We reverse the order of dismissal and remand the case to the district court for reinstatement of the criminal complaint. I. Background ¶2 Jacobs was charged with first degree murder, child abuse resulting in death, and child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury following the death of his girlfriend’s ten-month-old child. The child allegedly sustained the fatal injuries while in Jacobs’s care. ¶3 In July 2023, a year before the scheduled trial, the then- elected Eleventh Judicial District Attorney, Linda Stanley, invited a television reporter to her office for an interview. Among other things, Stanley opined on Jacobs’s guilt, disclosed his juvenile criminal history, and made lewd remarks about Jacobs’s relationship with his girlfriend and her child. Stanley’s statements were featured in two televised news stories, which aired in July and August 2023, and were rebroadcast on multiple social media sites. 1 ¶4 Based on Stanley’s comments, Jacobs filed a motion to dismiss the case for outrageous government conduct. He argued that Stanley had knowingly violated attorney ethical standards, including the American Bar Association (ABA) Criminal Justice Standards, and compromised his right to due process and a fair trial. Specifically, he asserted that Stanley’s interview statements “heighten[ed] public condemnation of [him], prejudic[ed] a potential jury, influenc[ed] the outcome of the case, and undermin[ed] public confidence in the criminal legal system.” He asked the court to dismiss all charges. ¶5 The district court held two hearings on the motion. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, as well as additional briefing, the district court granted Jacobs’s motion. The court concluded that Stanley’s conduct, which violated her ethical duties under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and other standards, had a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing [the] proceedings” and amounted to outrageous government conduct. As for the remedy, the court declined the prosecution’s request for a change of venue because, in its view, a change of venue over the defendant’s objection would violate his right to a 2  trial by a jury of his peers in the county where the crime was allegedly committed. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the charges against Jacobs. II. Discussion ¶6 The prosecution appeals the district court’s order, arguing that it erred by concluding that Stanley’s conduct satisfies the standard for finding outrageous government conduct that warrants dismissal. We agree. A. Standard of Review ¶7 Outrageous government