A federal judge and a prominent civil rights attorney both stood their ground at a hearing on Thursday over an impending $18,000 sanction resulting from a failure to turn over evidence as ordered.

Sasha Cronick is pursuing claims of unreasonable search and seizure and false arrest against Colorado Springs officers who handcuffed her minutes after she helped resuscitate a man who had stopped breathing from a drug overdose. This spring, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed two officers will stand trial for their alleged constitutional violations.

However, the officers separately argued Cronick deliberately withheld evidence relevant to the case — including videos and comments on her YouTube channel that showed an inclination to provoke encounters with authorities, plus an online conversation specifically about the events surrounding her arrest.

In a series of orders, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello agreed Cronick had disobeyed the directive to hand over information to the defendants. She signaled she would sanction the plaintiff’s side for the amount spent by the defense during the standoff, $18,000. But Arguello could not tell who bore responsibility — Cronick or her attorneys — and scheduled a hearing to sort it out.

“In my almost 16 years on the bench, I’ve never had to conduct a hearing like this. I had to go to the books to figure out what I’m supposed to be doing,” Arguello said at the outset.

“I’ve been practicing law for 44 years and no court has ever, in 44 years, sanctioned me for anything or accused me of wrongdoing. Except for this court,” retorted attorney David Lane.

Originally, the lawyer for Colorado Springs and the two officer defendants accused Cronick of deleting her YouTube videos and certain online communications. Noting the materials would be relevant to the ultimate jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell indicated she was “seriously troubled” by Cronick ignoring her directive to facilitate the disclosure of evidence.

“Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony demonstrates that Plaintiff does indeed have direct access to, and control over, the YouTube account in question,” wrote Dominguez Braswell in October 2023.

Arguello, in reviewing Dominguez Braswell’s recommendation, agreed financial sanctions were warranted to pay the defendants’ costs of pursuing the evidence. In an Aug. 30 order, she blasted Lane and attorney Reid Allison for “enabling and facilitating Ms. Cronick’s ongoing disobedience of a lawful discovery order.”

During the hearing, Arguello pushed back against the notion she had accused Lane of wrongdoing.

“I didn’t say you did” withhold the evidence, she clarified. “I said this should have been produced.”

“I took this as a statement that I have violated the rules of professional conduct, I have violated discovery rules and now $18,000 is on the line here,” said Lane. “I continue to object strenuously —”

“You can take me up to the 10th Circuit,” Arguello cut him off. “I called it on how I saw the law applied to this. If I’m wrong, the 10th Circuit will tell me I’m wrong.”

Lane replied that he repeatedly told his client he did not believe Cronick had disobeyed a court order, nor did he believe he had erred. He refused to “throw (Cronick) under the bus at a hearing,” nor, he added, would Cronick agree to tell Arguello that her lawyers should pay the full amount.

“We’re not playing. Do whatever you wanna do,” he said to Arguello.

Arguello informed Lane she could either hold everyone on the plaintiff’s side liable for the sanction or she could rule at the conclusion of the case. Lane said he anticipated the case would end in an appeal to the 10th Circuit, and the appellate court would have the ultimate say.

“You don’t want to give me any evidence today to apportion it any other way?” Arguello asked in closing. Lane responded in the negative.

“That’s fair,” Arguello said before ending the hearing. She indicated she will issue a written order imposing the sanction.

The case is Cronick v. Pryor et al.