The People of the State of Colorado v. McGee

  • Status: In State Supreme Court
  • Court: Colorado Supreme Court
  • Latest Update: Sep 03, 2025
Placeholder image

The ACLU of Colorado filed an Amicus Brief seeking to provide the Court with Colorado-specific context that counsels strongly against eroding the protection provided by a second competency evaluation by an evaluator of the raising party’s choice.

The trial of a person incapable of understanding what is happening to them and making a defense violates our most fundamental principles of justice. In determining how to prevent putting accused people who are incompetent to proceed to trial, the legislature made available an iterative evaluation procedure. While the first evaluation of a person’s competency is conducted by a Colorado Department of Human Services (Department) forensic psychologist, any party may have a second evaluation conducted, by an independent forensic psychologist.

Petitioner is facing serious charges in Larimer County. Defense counsel raised competency in May 2025. The court ordered a competency evaluation. After the Department evaluator opined that Petitioner was competent, the court denied Petitioner the second competency evaluation by the evaluator of his choice (in this case, a person with expertise in his particular conditions) as guaranteed by statute § 16-8.5-103(3), (4), C.R.S. The defense filed for emergency relief in this Rule 21 proceeding.

We filed an amicus brief in support of Petitioner, arguing that Colorado’s statutory protections around competency to proceed are required by our particular context. We argued that the history of the second evaluation requirement, which was passed during an overhaul of the entire competency scheme in 2008, emphasizes its importance. We also described how hiring, training, and management of Department psychologists creates a real risk that Department evaluators may be newly licensed, minimally forensically trained, and under significant time pressure. The option for a second evaluation by an evaluator outside of the Department mitigates this risk. We urge the Court to protect fundamental rights in Colorado by leaving the option for a second evaluation undisturbed.

Case Number:
2025SA224
Attorney(s):
Emma Mclean-Riggs, Timothy R. Macdonald