The Colorado Supreme Court directed a Delta County judge on Thursday to revisit his order requiring a defendant accused of murder to disclose evidence to the prosecution about an alleged alternate suspect.

In a brief Feb. 29 order, the justices told District Court Judge Steven L. Schultz to follow the guidance the Supreme Court issued in January, which rejected the idea that trial judges may force defendants to reveal all of their alternate suspect evidence to the prosecution ahead of trial.

Mark Burns stands accused of murdering Michael Arnold and Donna Gallegos in 2022. Burns intends to dispute that he was the killer, and that an alternate suspect was really responsible.

In July, Schultz ordered the defense to disclose the identity of the alternate suspect, the facts applicable to the suspect and the “evidentiary hypothesis” supporting the suspect’s guilt.

To allow the defense to keep such information to themselves until trial “would literally turn the established pre-trial process into the wild west, and reinstate a system based on trial by ambush,” Schultz wrote.

Burns then sought the Supreme Court’s direct intervention. Procedural rules require disclosure of the “nature” of a defense, but he argued Schultz’s order went far beyond that. It would violate Burns’ due process rights, his lawyers explained, to force him to assist the government in proving its case.

While Burns’ request was pending, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling earlier this year in a similar appeal out of Weld County. In that case, People v. Dye, the trial judge directed the defense to hand over “all evidence” of an alternate murder suspect to the prosecution.

Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr., writing for the court, clarified that defendants must state their intent to rely on an alternate suspect prior to trial, identify any alternate suspects and disclose the addresses of any alternate suspects expected to testify. Although trial judges may need to hold hearings in advance about the admissibility of specific evidence, defendants do not have to do anything more to assist the government.

“From there, it is up to the prosecution to conduct its own investigation into any alternate suspect identified,” Samour wrote.

The Supreme Court directed Schultz to proceed in Burns’ case with an understanding of the narrow obligation the defense has to reveal alternate suspect information.

The case is People v. Burns.