The Colorado Supreme Court issued a pair of orders on Friday attempting to end the turbulence after an accidental disclosure of confidential defense information to the prosecution affected multiple Weld County criminal cases.

District Court Judge Vincente G. Vigil has struggled to contain the fallout from a botched cell phone search that resulted in hundreds of privileged defense files being reviewed by the district attorney’s investigator. The flawed process has affected the cases of Marquise Shadell Daniels, who stands accused of murder, and Laura Tellers, who allegedly smuggled drugs into the Weld County jail through Daniels.

Tellers worked as an investigator for Daniels and other criminal defendants. It was her cell phone contents law enforcement extracted. Vigil adopted a process that envisioned a retired judge would screen the data and redact any confidential attorney-client information before it would be available for prosecutors’ review.

Instead, for reasons that are unclear, the process failed.

After the Supreme Court stepped in last year at the request of both defendants, the justices issued two orders on Feb. 7. First, the court told the district attorney’s investigator to cease his review of Tellers’ cell phone.

In Daniels’ case, the justices instructed Vigil to determine if a properly redacted version of the cell phone exists. If so, he is to order everyone who received the unredacted version to return it to him, and to identify who had access to the unredacted files. 

Then, Vigil will need to share the redacted version with Daniels’ lawyers for review. The defense may also renew its motion to remove the district attorney’s office from the case and appoint a special prosecutor. If Vigil denies the motion, he will then give prosecutors access to the non-confidential cell phone files.

For Tellers’ case, the Supreme Court could not tell if the cell phone extraction contained confidential information related to her own prosecution, rather than Daniels’. It directed Vigil to re-examine that question and then take another look at Tellers’ motion to remove the district attorney’s office from her case, as well.

Attorneys for both defendants did not immediately respond to emails about the orders, and the office of District Attorney Michael Rourke did not immediately have a comment.

How it started

Initially, Vigil was assigned to the cases for Daniels and Tellers. He authorized a special master to review a download of Tellers’ entire cell phone, recognizing the data could include attorney-client information about Daniels’ defense.

Under the plan, the special master, retired District Court Judge Russell H. Granger, would receive training about how to review the downloaded files, withhold data as needed and send his questions to Vigil directly.

Instead, the arrangement kicked off a series of problems for everyone involved.

Granger wrote to Vigil in June to say he finished his review of more than 200,000 files. He noted he was only given “broad direction” and had done his best to withhold documents that appeared confidential. But due to the “extremely large number of files, an error is possible,” Granger cautioned.

Shortly afterward, the district attorney’s chief investigator, Michael D. Prill, reviewed Granger’s work and found a red flag. Prill realized Granger had not withheld all confidential files, and Prill encountered documents about attorney-client interactions.

At a hearing, 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.

After temporarily halting Prill’s review of Tellers’ phone, Vigil decided to authorize Prill to continue — but to avoid sharing any materials with the district attorney’s office. Days later, Daniels’ attorney moved to terminate the district attorney’s office from the case, as the prosecution was in possession of more than 100 confidential documents. Vigil quickly responded that he would rule on the request after Prill completed his review.

Daniels appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which stepped in mid-September and halted proceedings while it reviewed the case.

Meanwhile, Tellers’ own prosecution continued. Her attorney, Lee E. Christian, noted the proceedings in Daniels’ case meant Christian was prohibited from reviewing the contents of his own client’s phone. Although Christian pointed out Tellers’ phone contained “information of her entire life,” Vigil maintained his intent was to “protect Mr. Daniels’ privileged information” by barring Tellers’ access to the data.

Then, a new puzzle piece surfaced.

A ‘seriously flawed’ procedure

Weeks after the Supreme Court took up Daniels’ case for consideration, Prill opened an envelope he had received in September, apparently from Granger. Unsure whether he could open it because the proceedings were paused, Prill received instructions from the prosecution to continue his work with Tellers’ cell phone data.

Prill discovered two thumb drives in the envelope: one from Tellers’ cellular provider with anticipated records, and a second that appeared to contain the redacted version of Tellers’ cell phone from Granger.

Prill and the prosecutor speculated that “court staff later accidently (sic) provided us the original download contained on the external drive, instead of the version created by Granger and transferred onto this thumb drive,” he wrote in a memo documenting his actions.

For Vigil’s part, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office wrote that he took “extremely seriously” the possibility that court staff inadvertently released the unredacted files to the prosecution.

The prosecution argued the Supreme Court should not remove the district attorney’s office because its employees had properly handled the unexpected complications.

“To remove the entire office for events that it stands blameless and appoint a special prosecutor this late would be a windfall for the defendant and a great injustice,” wrote Rourke’s office.

Daniels’ attorneys responded that the problem was actually about the confidential information the prosecution’s team had already reviewed. Because the court’s pause on proceedings also affected Tellers’ ability to mount a defense using her cell phone data, her attorney petitioned the Supreme Court in December to get involved prior to Tellers’ January 2025 trial.

“The District Court imposed a seriously flawed Special Master procedure without consulting, monitoring or assisting the Special Master,” wrote Christian. The prosecution “allowed an investigator employed by their office to look through 24,000 files before he allegedly stumbled upon privileged information. Their solution: Let him finish looking.”

The cases are People v. Daniels and People v. Tellers.