The Colorado Supreme Court signaled last week that it may intervene in a Weld County murder case in which a trial judge has struggled to contain the accidental release of confidential defense documents to the prosecution.

Marquise Shadell Daniels stands accused of murdering Blaire McQueen in December 2020. In an unusual twist, an investigator for the defense, Laura Tellers, was herself arrested shortly before trial for allegedly smuggling drugs into the Weld County jail through Daniels.

Police obtained a search warrant to extract the contents of Tellers’ cell phone. Recognizing the data could include confidential attorney-client information about Daniels’ defense, the parties agreed a special master would receive training about how to review the downloaded files, withhold data as needed and release the remaining material on a rolling basis.

That did not happen.

On Aug. 9, the district attorney’s chief investigator, Michael D. Prill, submitted a report disclosing a problem. Prill was in charge of reviewing Tellers’ phone data processed by the special master, Russell H. Granger, who is a retired trial judge from the Fifth Judicial District. Prill realized Granger had not withheld all confidential files, and Prill encountered documents from Daniels’ murder case about attorney-client interactions.

Prill wrote that he stopped his review and contacted the prosecution. They then immediately called Daniels’ attorneys.

“We conveyed our concerns and advised that I was not comfortable reviewing any additional documents that appeared to involve notes from a jail visit with Daniels. I immediately shredded the printed versions,” wrote Prill.

At an Aug. 16 hearing before District Court Judge Vincente G. Vigil, Daniels’ lawyers warned that the prosecution had at least 50 different confidential documents about the murder case and Daniels’ anticipated defense at trial — plus information about other cases Tellers had worked on before her arrest.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” said attorney James E. Merson.

Vigil acknowledged Granger’s work as special master “appears not to have been completed in the way it needs to be completed.” He added he needed to balance Daniels’ right to confidentiality with the government’s ability to prosecute the murder case.

Vigil ordered the data review to stop and floated the idea that he might have to surrender his docket to another judge so he could re-review, full time, the data Granger was supposed to screen in the first place.

Two weeks later, the parties reconvened in Vigil’s courtroom. The prosecution emphasized it did not want Vigil to recuse himself from the case and instead suggested Prill continue reviewing the cell phone data entirely.

“Your position,” summarized Vigil, is that “damage has been done already.”

“Ethically, I don’t think I can say, like, ‘Yes, these people that are prosecuting my client for murder, keep looking through this stuff’,” responded Merson. “The only acceptable answer for me is to get all the extractions that have this information in it — basically, like, stop the bleeding, return that information” to the court.

Vigil instead authorized Prill to continue with his review of Tellers’ phone, but to avoid sharing any materials with the district attorney’s office. If Prill encountered any issues, he would need to contact Vigil directly.

Days later, the defense moved to terminate the district attorney’s office from the case, asking Vigil to appoint a special prosecutor. Daniels’ attorneys wrote that the prosecution was in possession of at least 114 confidential documents about Daniels’ defense. Vigil quickly responded that he would wait to rule on the request after Prill completed his review.

On Sept. 16, Daniels asked the Supreme Court to step in.

“The prosecution team is in actual possession of hundreds of documents, emails, images, text messages that are work product generated to help defend Mr. Daniels of murder,” wrote Merson, arguing Daniels’ right to a fair trial was at stake.

Merson requested that the justices reverse Vigil’s ruling allowing Prill to continue with the data review and also to disqualify the Weld County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the case.

Two days later, the Supreme Court ordered Vigil and the prosecution to respond, halting all further proceedings.

The case is People v. Daniels.