Background
Michael Martin Clark was convicted of first-degree murder in 2012. After allegations of misconduct by former Colorado Bureau of Investigation DNA analyst Yvonne “Missy” Woods emerged, the prosecution stipulated to vacating Clark’s conviction and granting a new trial, although it noted that later testing still did not exclude Clark as a contributor to DNA found on a Carmex container at the crime scene.
While awaiting retrial, Clark subpoenaed CBI for materials from other Woods cases meeting specified Y-STR and DNA-profile search criteria. He said the records could support an anticipated motion to dismiss for outrageous governmental conduct by showing that CBI policy permitted scientifically unreliable DNA reporting. The district court denied CBI’s motion to quash.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Supreme Court made its order to show cause absolute and held that the district court erred in denying CBI’s motion to quash on the record before it. A Crim. P. 17 subpoena cannot be used as an investigative tool or a general fishing expedition, and the district court prematurely found the materials relevant to a yet-unfiled outrageous-governmental-conduct motion.
The court remanded for reconsideration under all five factors in People v. Spykstra, now that Clark has filed his dismissal motion. It also held that the Forensic Science Integrity Act did not independently authorize Clark’s subpoena because he did not follow the statute’s procedures: he did not make a written request to the district attorney or file a motion for discovery before subpoenaing CBI directly.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal Rule 17 subpoena is limited and cannot be used to search unrelated cases for possible support for a broader theory.
- A defendant seeking discovery for an outrageous-governmental-conduct claim must establish relevance to a properly presented pretrial claim.
- The FSIA requires defendants to pursue discovery through the district attorney or a court motion before a subpoena may issue.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that allegations involving forensic-laboratory misconduct do not create unlimited access to records from unrelated prosecutions. Defendants must satisfy the established subpoena standard and the FSIA’s statutory process.
The court left open whether Clark may obtain any requested material on remand, directing the district court to make complete findings under Spykstra and to revisit the request’s burden.