PRAGMATIC ISSUES

Colorado has updated its competency laws over the last several years to clarify procedures for defendants who cannot understand or participate in their criminal proceedings. Those reforms — intended to protect due process and move people into treatment when possible — contain a painful truth: when restoration isn’t possible the law too often leaves everybody worse off. Defendants can be warehoused, bounced between criminal and civil systems, or released with little support. Victims are left without accountability, explanation, or meaningful safety assurances.

The basic framework (what the law says)

When a defendant is suspected to be unable to understand the proceedings or assist counsel, Colorado law calls for competency evaluation and, where appropriate, court-ordered restoration services (inpatient, jail-based, or community restoration). The statutes require courts to assess whether there is a “substantial probability” the defendant will be restored to competency within the reasonably foreseeable future; if restoration is likely, the court may order restoration treatment. If an evaluator or expert opines that there is not a substantial probability of restoration, the court must schedule a hearing on that issue and consider alternatives — including dismissal of criminal charges for lower-level offenses or initiating civil certification for treatment under the mental-health code.

It is my understanding the the court ordered evaluations can sometimes be faked by the defendant although I know evaluators would argue this, the truth is that you can Google how to be found mentally incompetent for the purpose of a court ordered evaluation.

Colorado law has been amended in recent years (for example through HB22-1386 and related measures) to tighten timelines for review, require more frequent competency reviews, and make explicit that the court must dismiss a case if there is not a substantial probability the defendant will be restored to competency in the reasonably foreseeable future. Those changes were meant to prevent indefinite pretrial detention without a path forward.

Defendants: caught between criminal punishment and medical treatment

The Constitution (Jackson v. Indiana) forbids indefinite detention of criminal defendants solely because they are incompetent, but it does not give a neat solution for people who cannot be restored. States (including Colorado) attempt to thread the needle by using restoration orders, certification for civil commitment, or dismissal — but each option raises problems:

• Indefinite or repeated confinement while waiting for restoration — Because beds, services, and specialized programs are limited, defendants may wait in jail for months or years for restoration placement. That delay can worsen mental illness and strip people of liberty without the protections of a criminal trial. National research shows wide variation across states and many cases of prolonged confinement.
• Civil commitment is not guaranteed and has different standards — If a court or the civil probate system refuses to civilly commit someone after a criminal-system finding of unrestorability, the person may be returned to a criminal setting or released without supports — stuck in legal limbo. Critics call this the “ping-pong” problem between criminal and civil systems.
• Treatment mismatch and lack of tailored services — Some defendants are labeled unrestorable because the standard restoration curriculum doesn’t address intellectual disability, dementia, or traumatic brain injury; the law requires evaluators to flag when a defendant will need unique services, but those services often don’t exist or aren’t funded. That creates a legal finding of “unrestorable” without any humane, therapeutic alternative.

In cases that disproportionately draw public outrage, two stories—one from Aurora involving Solomon Galligan, the other from Jefferson County involving Guillermo Ramirez—cast a harsh light on the human toll exacted by Colorado’s law for defendants deemed incompetent and unrestorable.

A “Bitter Pill to Swallow”: The Ramirez Tragedy in Jefferson County

Even more painful is the case of Guillermo Ramirez, involved in a fiery 2021 crash in Golden that took two lives and seriously injured others. Medical evaluations—six of them—found Ramirez incompetent to stand trial and not restorable. Colorado’s new law, requiring dismissal in such cases, compelled District Judge Tamara Russell to “bitterly” dismiss the charges—even as the courtroom shook with grief and disbelief from families present.

Ramirez’s defense hinged on a traumatic brain injury and preexisting ADHD. A body-camera video showing him interacting coherently with law enforcement later gave prosecutors pause—but didn’t change the final incompetency conclusion. Notably, after dismissal, the prosecution could no longer monitor, object, or ensure any kind of treatment or supervision, leaving victims and families feeling abandoned by the law they trusted to protect them.

Brittany Leon—whose sister, Brisia, was killed—stood tearfully in court and afterward declared:

“Guillermo Ramirez is a dangerous person to society… we are devastated… this system is broken…”

In April 2024, 33-year-old registered sex offender Solomon Galligan reportedly approached children during recess at Black Forest Hills Elementary School in Aurora, attempting to grab an 11-year-old boy—an event clearly captured on surveillance video as children ran and cried “stranger danger.” However, Galligan was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial following multiple evaluations, and under Colorado law, criminal charges must be dropped in such cases. The District Attorney’s office clarified that Galligan will not be freely released into the public but is instead slated for civil commitment for mental health treatment but could be released at any time without supervision.

Colorado’s intention—to prevent indefinite detention of the mentally ill—is historically and legally sound. Yet, due process without infrastructure traps defendants and victims alike:

• Defendants, like Galligan and Ramirez, are declared unrestorable—but without clear pathways to long-term treatment or even civil oversight.
• Victims and families face frustrations: no trial, no justice, and often no systemic follow-up to ensure community safety or their peace of mind.

The current law creates a bind: courts must dismiss, but there is rarely a safety net where that person goes next or how they’re supervised—or whether they ever receive care calibrated to their needs.

Colorado urgently needs reform rooted not in ideology, but in both justice and compassion:

1. Link dismissals to enforceable treatment and supervision plans. Dismissals shouldn’t mean free rein—they should trigger civil mechanisms that protect community safety and ensure treatment continuity.
2. Ensure victim notification and rights are binding—not optional. Families deserve updates and a voice, even when criminal proceedings end.
3. Invest in forensic treatment capacity and specialized programming. No more decades of evaluations with no pathway forward.

When we reduce cases like Galligan’s or Ramirez’s to frustration—“They get to walk free”—we ignore the deeper crisis: a legal system trying to do right by the Constitution, but failing to deliver justice, mental-health care, or closure. Until Colorado builds a bridge from the courtroom to a humane, accountable future, it will continue to fail both those found incompetent—and those hurt by their actions.

Victims: no trial, no answers, and often no closure

When prosecutors cannot proceed because a defendant is permanently incompetent and the case is dismissed or diverted to civil treatment, victims (and communities) often feel abandoned:

• Dismissal can feel like impunity — For victims of serious crimes, a court’s dismissal because the defendant is unrestorable often reads as “the system gave up.” That can amplify trauma, distrust in the justice system, and a sense of injustice — especially if there is no transparent pathway to treatment or supervision of the person who harmed them. Recent Colorado reporting shows victims and prosecutors struggling to reconcile compassionate mental-health limits with a desire for accountability.
• Victim safety and notification gaps — Civil commitment standards and release plans operate under different rules and timelines than criminal sentencing. Victims may not receive timely, meaningful notification about whether a defendant was dismissed, committed, placed under outpatient treatment, or released, and they may lack a voice in decisions that impact their safety. The state’s victims’ rights framework exists, but its practical reach can be limited in competency proceedings.
• Prolonged uncertainty — Even when restoration is attempted, the process can take months or years. Families of victims repeatedly say the delay prolongs their grief and prevents closure; public trust erodes when high-profile cases stall on competency questions (some Colorado mass-violence cases illustrate this strain).

Where Colorado’s legal design fails — three big problems

1. Treatment scarcity turns constitutional safeguards into empty promises.
   The statutes create obligations (timely restoration, regular review, dismissal when unrestorable) but rely on treatment capacity that often isn’t there; when no competent, individualized services exist, the court’s options are panicked and unsatisfactory. That means defendants languish or are cycled between institutions, and the “dismiss or commit” binary results in neither justice nor adequate care.
2. Fragmentation between criminal, civil, and community systems produces gaps and delay.
   Criminal courts, specialty forensic hospitals, probate courts, and community mental-health providers operate under different standards, evidentiary rules, and resources. When coordination fails, defendants fall through the cracks — and victims don’t get consistent information or protection. Court-ordered restoration may be clinically inappropriate for someone with dementia or a severe developmental disability, yet the alternative (civil commitment) is unpredictable.
3. Process-focused reforms lack victim-centered safety planning and transparency.
   Colorado law requires periodic competency reviews and mandates dismissal when restoration is unlikely — sound on paper — but provides limited mechanisms to communicate decisions, set conditions that protect victims, or ensure enforced, effective community supervision or treatment after dismissal or civil certification. That leaves victims feeling unheard and unsafe even when the courts follow the letter of the law.

Concrete reforms that would help (practical, not ideological)

1. Invest in and expand community-based and tailored restoration services.
   More outpatient restoration programs, forensic community treatment, and specialized tracks for intellectual disability/dementia would reduce jail waits and create real restoration options instead of declarations of “unrestorable.” (Statutes already urge evaluators to identify unique needs — funding must match the policy.)
2. Create an integrated—but rights-protecting—pathway that ties dismissal or civil disposition to enforceable treatment and supervision plans.
   If charges are dismissed because a defendant is unrestorable, the statute should require (and fund) an evidence-based plan that meaningfully addresses public safety and treatment continuity — with victims notified and given participation rights consistent with constitutional limits and privacy law.
3. Speed up timelines and transparency, with victim-notification safeguards.
   Competency-review deadlines should be enforced; courts should be required to provide victims clear, timely notices about outcomes and the practical implications for safety and access to protective orders or community resources. Victims’ rights guides are useful but must be operationalized in competency contexts.
4. Track outcomes and use data to close the ping-pong loop.
   The state should collect and publish data on competency evaluations, restoration placements, civil certification outcomes, lengths of confinement prior to placement or release, and victims’ notification metrics — then fund pilot programs where integrated care reduces recidivism and improves victim safety.

Final take — rights without resources is only a first step

Colorado’s competency statutes strike at an important constitutional problem: you cannot force a mentally incompetent person to stand trial, and you cannot hold them indefinitely without a path to restoration. But protecting due process shouldn’t result in either indefinite pretrial detention or a procedural dismissal that leaves victims without answers and defendants without treatment. The law currently asks courts to make wrenching, often impossible choices because the social infrastructure (beds, outpatient programs, coordinated civil-criminal pathways, victim-notification systems) isn’t there.

Real reform is not just a legal tweak: it’s investment in services, operational coordination across systems, and statutes that create enforced, humane alternatives when restoration is not achievable. Until Colorado closes those gaps, the system will keep breaking twice — once for the defendant and once for the victim.

Sources and further reading

• Colorado Revised Statutes, Article 8.5 (competency procedures; restoration and dismissal provisions).
• HB22-1386 (statutory reforms requiring dismissal when restoration is unlikely and tightening review timelines).
• Recent Colorado reporting on dismissed murder and competency cases (examples of victims and prosecutors grappling with unrestorability decisions).
• Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) — constitutional limits on indefinite commitment for incompetency.
• National and academic analyses of competency-restoration delays and cross-system failure (policy briefs and medical-legal literature).

If you have been a victim of Colorado’s Law for Defendants Found “Incompetent and Not Restorable” and would like to share your story, email us below.