Judge in JeffCo dismisses charges against man accused of causing fatal crash in 2021 while intoxicated

A man in Jefferson County who was charged with causing a fatal crash in December 2021 has had his charges dropped by a judge. This decision came after doctors determined that he was not mentally fit to stand trial.

The District Court Judge, Tamara S. Russell, expressed disappointment as she dismissed the case against Guillermo Ramirez. Ramirez was facing twelve charges, including multiple counts of vehicular homicide.

Ramirez was deemed unfit to stand trial in six separate medical assessments. A recent state law mandates that if a defendant is found incompetent and cannot be restored to competency, the case must be dismissed by the judge.

“I have the unenviable job of dismissing the case, even though everything in my head and my heart says the opposite,” an emotional Russell said in court Thursday to the families of the two people who died as a result of the crash.

The charges against Ramirez stem from a Dec. 17, 2021, crash along Sixth Avenue near Colfax Avenue in Golden. Ramirez was reportedly driving more than 100 miles per hour when he hit a 2003 Chevrolet SUV carrying Joseph, Billie Jo and Nelie Bowman.

Ramirez’s passenger, 24-year-old Brisia Leon, a mother of three, died in the crash. Nelie, 66, died roughly nine months after the crash from injuries she sustained that day.

Ramirez had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.225 and had benzos and marijuana in his system.

Attorneys for Ramirez argued that a traumatic brain injury (TBI) that occurred in the crash, coupled with a previous diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), made him incompetent to stand trial.

This case has been central to a Denver7 investigation on the complexities of competency in Colorado. In previous reports, Denver7 Investigates broke down the case and transcripts from hearings dating back roughly three years.

“Nothing truly feels resolved,” Joseph Bowman told Denver7 Investigates after the hearing. “This system is broken, not just in terms of the mental health system but in terms of the criminal law system.”

In a rare move, prosecutors with the First Judicial District disputed doctors’ findings that Ramirez was incompetent and not restorable.

Transcripts show that prosecutors obtained body-worn camera footage of Ramirez interacting with police officers in Denver more than a year after the crash, claiming Ramirez was coherently communicating with them.

One of the examining doctors, Dr. Trang Walker, previously testified that she believed Ramirez would not be able to discuss his case with his attorneys, especially in high-stress situations. After viewing that body-worn camera footage, Walker told the court she was less confident in her diagnosis, but ultimately, that she would still find Ramirez incompetent.

“We had to do a lot of work to challenge the expertise here. It’s not common for us to challenge a doctor’s report finding somebody competent or incompetent,” First Judicial District Chief Deputy District Attorney Ali Brady said.

During Thursday’s hearing, Judge Russell was critical of the state’s mental health system and the processes that resulted in multiple delays in this case.

“The system has come up short time and time again in this case,” she said. “Clearly, the mental health department is failing us.”

A spokesperson for the DA’s office emphasized, “The reality is that under the new law, the vast majority of individuals will not meet the state’s narrow criteria to qualify for services, meaning the vast majority of individuals — like Mr. Ramirez — who still pose a risk to community safety are released with no treatment plan, no monitoring, and no support in place, creating serious concerns for public safety and system accountability.”

After the hearing, Brady said it is fair for the community and victims to be concerned that Ramirez was cleared of charges with no supervision or services moving forward, and echoed some of Russell’s criticisms.

“There are no clear and consistent standards for the factors that evaluators should be considering in evaluation,” she said.

When the case was dismissed, the Bowmans and Brisia Leon’s family stayed in court for several minutes, in tears over the fact that the man responsible for their family members’ deaths would not be held accountable.

Leon’s sister, Brittany, spoke with Denver7 Investigates after the hearing and called Ramirez “a coward.”

“I know that justice will be served, no matter if it didn’t get served today in the courts. It will be served in this life,” she said.

• Read the full statement from Brittany Leon below

Ramirez declined to comment after the hearing.

The Bowmans, heartbroken by the result, said they plan to take this to the State Capitol and lobby for changes to state law to prevent similar results in the future.

“All that I can do now is make it so that no other families have to suffer,” Joseph Bowman said. “This is a problem that needs to be solved now at the level of the state legislature, and I have every intention of doing that.”

Response from Colorado’s Office of Civil and Forensic Mental Health (OCFMH)

The state’s Office of Civil and Forensic Mental Health Health operates two of Colorado’s mental health hospitals and oversees evaluations for defendants whose competency has been brought into question.

OCFMH cannot comment on specific cases or patients.

Denver7 Investigates asked a spokesperson for the office several questions regarding competency evaluations and protocol. The questions and responses are below:

1. Is it expected for competency evaluators to interact with a defendant/patient’s restoration providers? If so, how often/what should that communication look like? Are evaluators expected to communicate their concerns regarding an individual patient’s needs for restoration to the restoration providers? If no communication is required, should that be reevaluated?
   1. Typically, evaluators will review treatment records for patients when available. There are times when records may not be available and/or the evaluator can decide if a patient is competent or incompetent based on the information they have gathered directly during the interview. However, evaluators always have the option to consult with treatment providers if they think it’s necessary to form an opinion on competency. 

      The consultation is based on the individual patient/defendant, but it can include communication about their psychiatric illness, symptom presentation, medication adherence, behavioral observations and treatment plan considerations. 

   2. The communication is reciprocal as well, as the competency evaluations are shared with our treatment providers to help them review and make any necessary changes to the patient’s treatment, including restoration education. The treatment providers are skilled in interpreting the information and adjusting treatment needs. However, if additional consultation is needed, it is always available.
   3. All our staff and contractors work closely together to ensure a comprehensive and effective course of treatment for our patients. 

2. What are some reasons a defendant/patient might be evaluated for competency by one doctor several times, and then another doctor several times? If multiple evaluators do see the same patient, are those evaluators expected to communicate about their findings?
   1. There are several reasons why a new evaluator might be brought into a case. It may be that an evaluator has seen a patient multiple times and requests a new doctor to take the case for an additional perspective. It may be due to a conflict after providing testimony or other case occurrences, or there may be other demands on their caseload or being out on extended leave. Additionally, the court or attorneys might hire an outside expert for a second opinion. 
   2. Per statute, all previous evaluations must be reviewed and summarized so the court is aware of prior findings and circumstances. Whether an evaluator consults with a prior evaluator depends on the case and is more likely if there are questions.
   3. At times, there might be additional assessments or evaluations that are not competency-related that may be completed through the courts or outside of the courts, not by CDHS staff or contractors. When this occurs, the Department may or may not be aware and may or may not receive copies of this information. When a copy is shared by the court or otherwise made known and available by the defendant/attorneys/etc., the evaluator will include the report findings in the summary when relevant. This can be done either via direct review of the supplemental reports and/or via summarizing the previous competency evaluations that referenced it. 

3. We were told evaluators take criminal records into consideration when coming to a competency opinion. If a defendant continued having interactions with law enforcement after an evaluation and during restoration treatment, is that something providers would be alerted about? Or would providers have to check themselves for any new contact with law enforcement?
   1. Evaluators review all the information related to the case the defendant is being evaluated for. Typically, a patient/defendant’s criminal history (prior crimes) is provided by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC); however, there may be times when that information is not made available. An example of this would be if the report is not received before an evaluation is due in court (In the case of a new crime).  
   2. There is no legal requirement to report any other law enforcement contact to the Department or evaluator.
4. What is the threshold for a doctor to consider and defendant/patient to have “fair” or “good” attendance in their restoration sessions? Is it discretionary? Or are there specific numbers deeming “fair,” “good,” “bad,” etc.? If there are specifics, can you provide them for us?
   1. Each patient is considered individually, and their case is looked at as a whole. This means the individual’s prescribed sessions are considered, adherence is considered, and their level of engagement is considered. This is important because treatment is so individualized. One person may need a high number or frequency of sessions, while another a lower number and frequency. Because of that, restoration progress is assessed by considering how one has or has not demonstrated progress in their respective deficits, including their factual knowledge of the legal system, their ability to realistically and reasonably apply that knowledge to their specific case, and their ability to work with their attorney.

Denver7