Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Roldan

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided January 20, 2011No. 08CA2487Published

1Concurrence

Judge BERNARD

specially concurring.

Because I am bound by our supreme court's jurisprudence in this area, I must agree with the majority's holding that defendant's conviction has to be reversed. See People v. Smith, 183 P.3d 726, 729 (Colo.App.2008) (Colorado Court of Appeals is bound by decisions of Colorado Supreme Court). The conviction must be reversed because the trial court erred when it did not grant defendant's challenge for cause to Juror R. I write separately to express my hope that our supreme court will review this case to decide whether this strict remedy of automatic reversal in…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API