TodayLegal News

Colorado Paramedic Appeals Convictions in Elijah McClain Death Case

A former Aurora, Colorado, paramedic convicted of criminally negligent homicide and assault in the 2019 death of Elijah McClain is appealing his convictions to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Peter Cichuniec argues the jury's verdict was inconsistent, convicting him for drug administration while acquitting his co-defendant who actually administered the fatal ketamine dose.

AI-generated Summary
4 min readcourthouse-news

Case Information

Court:
Colorado Court of Appeals

Key Takeaways

  • Peter Cichuniec appeals convictions for criminally negligent homicide and assault in Elijah McClain's 2019 death
  • Defense argues jury verdict was inconsistent by convicting Cichuniec while acquitting co-defendant who administered ketamine
  • Cichuniec and Jeremy Cooper gave McClain 500mg of ketamine, far exceeding appropriate dose for 140-pound man
  • State argues different outcomes for co-defendants were based on different evidence in each case

The Colorado Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday from a former Aurora paramedic seeking to overturn his convictions in the 2019 death of Elijah McClain, an unarmed Black man who died after receiving a fatal dose of ketamine during a police encounter.

Peter Cichuniec, a former Aurora Fire Rescue paramedic, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and assault for his role in McClain's death. His attorney, Christopher Jackson, argued before the appeals court that the jury's verdict was legally inconsistent and should be overturned.

"This is the only way the verdict makes sense with the jury instructions," Jackson told the three-judge panel, contending that the convictions cannot stand under the legal framework provided to jurors.

The case stems from an Aug. 24, 2019, incident when Aurora police stopped McClain on reports of suspicious activity. Officers placed McClain in two carotid holds during the encounter. When Cichuniec and firefighter Jeremy Cooper arrived on scene, they concluded McClain was suffering from "excited delirium" based on responding officers' assessment that McClain was out of control and on drugs.

Cooper called for 500 mg of the sedative ketamine for McClain, who weighed only 140 pounds. The dosage far exceeded what would be appropriate for someone of McClain's size. Cichuniec agreed with the decision and relayed the order to the ambulance crew to measure the drug, which Cooper then administered.

The ketamine caused McClain to go into cardiac arrest. He never regained consciousness and died several days later at a hospital. Aurora emergency responders no longer use the drug following McClain's death.

Cichuniec is one of three men ultimately convicted in McClain's death. All three defendants have filed appeals with the Colorado Court of Appeals seeking to overturn their jury convictions.

The central argument in Cichuniec's appeal focuses on what his attorney characterizes as an inconsistent jury verdict. Jackson argued that it made no legal sense for the jury to convict Cichuniec of criminal assault for unlawful administration of drugs while simultaneously acquitting Cooper, who physically administered the ketamine, of the same offense.

Under Colorado law, Jackson contended, Cichuniec's assault conviction should have been inherently dependent on his co-defendant also being found to have committed a crime. Without Cooper being convicted of the underlying drug administration offense, Jackson argued, there was no crime for which Cichuniec could be held complicit.

"But the instructions for complicity don't say the other person was found guilty, it just says he committed the offense," Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Jones responded during oral arguments, questioning the defense's interpretation of the jury instructions.

First Assistant Attorney General Erin Grundy urged the appeals court to uphold the jury's verdict, arguing that courts should not attempt to rationalize seemingly inconsistent jury findings.

"We don't try to figure out why the jury decided what it did and we don't overturn it simply because it's confusing," Grundy told the court.

Grundy maintained that the two paramedics received different outcomes because their individual cases presented different evidence and circumstances. She noted that Cichuniec had testified during trial that he suggested increasing the ketamine dose because McClain appeared agitated, distinguishing his actions from those of his co-defendant.

The state's position reflects established legal precedent that generally defers to jury verdicts, even when the reasoning behind different outcomes for co-defendants may not be immediately apparent to observers.

The McClain case has drawn national attention as part of broader scrutiny of law enforcement practices and emergency medical responses involving Black Americans. McClain's death occurred during a period of heightened awareness about police use of force, and the subsequent prosecutions marked rare instances of criminal charges being filed against both law enforcement officers and emergency medical personnel.

The appeals court's decision will determine whether Cichuniec's convictions stand or whether the case returns to lower courts for further proceedings. The ruling could also impact the other defendants who have filed similar appeals in connection with McClain's death.

Legal experts have noted the unusual nature of prosecuting paramedics for their emergency medical decisions, making the case closely watched within both legal and medical communities. The outcome may influence how emergency responders approach similar situations in the future and could affect protocols for administering sedatives during police encounters.

The Colorado Court of Appeals has not indicated when it will issue its decision in the case. The court typically takes several months to review arguments and issue written opinions in criminal appeals.

Topics

criminal negligent homicideassaultpolice brutalitymedical malpracticeketamine overdoseexcited deliriumparamedic liability

Original Source: courthouse-news

This AI-generated summary is based on publicly available legal news, court documents, legislation, regulatory filings, and legal developments. For informational purposes only; not legal advice. Read full disclosure →