The state Supreme Court will decide whether a Douglas County judge has the authority to compel the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to release data related to the misconduct of a disgraced DNA analyst whose work affected numerous criminal cases.

Yvonne “Missy” Woods was criminally charged in Jefferson County on Jan. 22 with 102 felony counts related to her alleged alteration of DNA evidence and her concealment of possible contamination over a 15-year period with CBI. The bureau’s counterpart in South Dakota conducted a yearlong review that served as the basis for the district attorney’s actions.

Prior to Woods’ criminal charges, Douglas County prosecutors initiated a case against Adetayo Sotade alleging sexual assault and other crimes. Revelations of Woods’ misconduct surfaced while Sotade’s case was pending.

The defense sought and received CBI’s internal investigation records of Woods, who was the “technical reviewer” for DNA testing in Sotade’s case. In mid-2024, Sotade’s public defender also submitted a request to CBI using the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act. Counsel sought all cases involving Woods’ DNA testing and in which she provided testimony, which the public defender’s office could use going forward.

CBI provided some data in response, but withheld case-specific information. Pursuant to the criminal justice records law, Sotade’s attorney then filed a request for CBI to explain in court why it was allowed to withhold the relevant data.

CBI, which is located in Lakewood, argued a Douglas County judge had no authority to hear the motion. The criminal justice records law requires such requests to be filed “in the county in which the records are found.” For CBI, that meant Jeffco.

On Dec. 23, Douglas County District Court Judge Victoria Klingensmith sided with Sotade’s attorney and ordered the CBI to explain why it need not release the entirety of the records.

The bureau quickly appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act “provides predictability to criminal justice agencies and prevents their records custodians from being forced to travel across the state and expend limited public resources responding to show cause hearings in any civil or criminal proceeding where a party also seeks records through the CCJRA,” argued Assistant Attorney General Kelley M. Dziedzic.

She added that the public defender’s records request sought information beyond what was needed for Sotade’s case and appeared to be “an attempt to circumvent the rules of criminal procedure.”

The Supreme Court on Jan. 17 ordered Sotade’s lawyer and Klingensmith to respond to the CBI’s petition.

The case is People v. Sotade.