Background
Michael Martin Clark was convicted in 2012 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Former Colorado Bureau of Investigation DNA analyst Yvonne “Missy” Woods had analyzed evidence in his case and reported that Clark’s DNA was the major component of a mixed profile obtained from a Carmex container. After allegations of misconduct by Woods emerged, Clark supplemented his postconviction motion. Although an independent laboratory’s testing still could not exclude Clark as a contributor, the prosecution stipulated that the interests of justice warranted vacating his conviction and granting a new trial.
While awaiting retrial, Clark subpoenaed CBI for materials from other cases in which Woods had performed specified forms of DNA analysis and used particular terminology. He argued that the materials could support both his defense and a planned motion to dismiss for outrageous governmental conduct by showing that CBI’s policies permitted scientifically unsound reporting. CBI moved to quash, contending that the subpoena was irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and an impermissible fishing expedition. The district court denied the motion and later narrowed the required database searches, prompting CBI to seek original review in the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Supreme Court made its order to show cause absolute and remanded. It held that the district court abused its discretion by finding the requested materials relevant under Colorado Criminal Procedure Rule 17 and denying CBI’s motion to quash on the existing record. When the district court ruled, Clark had not yet filed his motion alleging outrageous governmental conduct, so the subpoenaed material was not then relevant to a fact of consequence concerning that claim. The subpoena also presented a substantial question under the requirement that it not serve as a general fishing expedition.
The court directed the district court to reconsider the subpoena now that Clark has filed his motion to dismiss and to make findings on all five factors required by People v. Spykstra. It separately held that the Colorado Forensic Science Integrity Act did not authorize the subpoena because Clark had not followed the statute’s procedures: he neither submitted a written discovery request to the district attorney nor filed a discovery motion with the court before subpoenaing CBI directly. The court did not decide whether the requested materials would otherwise fall within the Act’s substantive disclosure provisions or whether compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal subpoena under Rule 17 has a limited evidentiary function and cannot be used as a general investigative device; the requesting party must satisfy every Spykstra factor.
- Materials offered to support an outrageous-governmental-conduct claim were not relevant on this record when the defendant had not yet filed the required pretrial motion asserting that claim.
- The Forensic Science Integrity Act requires a defendant to request discovery through the district attorney or by court motion before resorting to a subpoena, and it does not provide a direct initial discovery mechanism against CBI.
Why It Matters
The decision defines procedural limits on defendants seeking information from unrelated forensic cases, particularly in litigation arising from alleged crime-laboratory misconduct. Even potentially relevant systemic evidence must be sought through the governing discovery procedures and supported by findings addressing specificity, relevance, availability, trial preparation, and the prohibition against fishing expeditions.
The ruling does not foreclose Clark from obtaining discovery on remand. Instead, it requires the district court to reassess the request in light of his now-filed outrageous-governmental-conduct motion, apply every Spykstra factor, and revisit the burden of compliance.