In a criminal trial, defendant challenged a prospective juror because he was an employee of the Colorado Attorney General’s office, representing the state Department of Corrections. State law requires a trial court to sustain a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who is “a compensated employee of a public law enforcement agency.” In this case, the court denied defendant’s challenge because “the Attorney General does a whole bunch of things besides law enforcement” and “this guy works in an area that’s not law enforcement.” Defendant used one of his peremptory challenges to excuse the AAG, and subsequently used all of his peremptory challenges. The Court of Appeals held that the statute applied to “any employee under the control of a law enforcement agency, irrespective of his or her job duties, so long as he or she was under the control of such agency”, citing a “concern . . . that one who is employed by a law enforcement agency will favor, or will be perceived to favor, the prosecution side of a criminal case.” The court held that the Attorney General’s office is a law enforcement agency within the meaning of the statute, because the Attorney General has authority to prosecute criminal antitrust and securities violations and handle all appeals from criminal convictions.