A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a man’s claims that a former Boulder County prosecutor “emboldened” an alleged sexual assault victim to alter her story after the original charge was dismissed for lack of probable cause.

The district attorney’s office twice attempted to prosecute Pierce Spinelli for felony sexual assault, his lawsuit alleged. But both times, the cases ended in dismissal. Spinelli then sued the prosecutor and detective who worked on the case, contending they conspired with his accuser to concoct a different version of the encounter after the first unsuccessful prosecution.

In an Oct. 7 order, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez dismissed the claims against ex-Deputy District Attorney Michelle Sudano. He concluded Spinelli failed to identify what actions Sudano specifically took that amounted to fabricating evidence.

“He says that Sudano ’emboldened’ (the accuser) to revise her account of the alleged sexual assault, but the word ’emboldened’ is too vague and nebulous,” Martínez wrote. “The Court does not know whether Sudano allegedly ’emboldened’ (the accuser) by merely comforting her, educating her about the legal standards at issue, talking through the night of the alleged incident to try to jog her memory, feeding her the precise facts to allege … or something else.”

Martínez gave Spinelli until Nov. 3 to pursue an amended complaint if he believed he could address the shortcomings Martínez identified.

Spinelli was a senior at the University of Colorado-Boulder when he had a sexual encounter with the alleged victim. Several days later, she spoke to police officers to say she had been drinking and told Spinelli repeatedly that she did not want to have sex. After a brief pause, Spinelli allegedly tried to initiate sex again, but the accuser did not tell him to stop.

Detective Scott Byars then interviewed the accuser, who Colorado Politics is not naming due to her status as an alleged crime victim who is not a party to the civil lawsuit. Byars and the accuser discussed how she had initially said “no” more than once, but that Spinelli never used force against her. Eventually, Byars allegedly opined it would be “very difficult” to prosecute the case and the accuser asked him to close it for the time being.

Days later, the accuser changed her mind, and Byars proceeded to contact other relevant parties, including Spinelli.

In mid-December 2022, three months after the alleged assault, Byars obtained an arrest warrant for Spinelli.

At a March 2023 hearing to determine whether the prosecution had probable cause to bring Spinelli to trial, then-County Court Judge David Archuleta dismissed the case after hearing testimony.

Archuleta said the way the encounter “came to pass” indicated the accuser initially withheld her consent, but she did not object further after the pause.

“It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault,” he said, finding no probable cause of a crime existed.

Afterward, the accuser texted Byars suggesting Spinelli’s family bribed the judge. Byars responded that the prosecutor, Sudano, “will work hard” on appealing Archuleta’s decision.

“Four days after the preliminary hearing, (the accuser) met with DDA Sudano, and, although no one memorialized what happened during their meeting,” wrote Spinelli’s attorneys, “DDA Sudano emboldened (the accuser) to report a new version of the alleged sexual assault that was directly responsive to Judge Archuleta’s reasons for dismissal.”

The accuser then met with Byars to provide another formal account of the encounter and allegedly altered the details of her story. Sudano presented the second set of allegations to a grand jury, which indicted Spinelli for the same offense.

Shortly before the July 2023 retrial, the prosecution disclosed for the first time the accuser’s conversations with Sudano and Byars following Archuleta’s decision. Sudano was no longer assigned to the case. Two days before trial, the prosecution dismissed the case, alleged Spinelli’s lawsuit.

Spinelli sued Byars for malicious prosecution, the city of Boulder for failing to properly train and supervise its detectives, and both Byars and Sudano for fabricating evidence.

Sudano moved to dismiss the claims against her, arguing she was immune from liability for her presentation to the grand jury and that the act of encouraging the accuser to speak with police further was not a constitutional violation.

“Ultimately, DDA Sudano needed to make a call on whether or how to proceed with the criminal case. Such a decision necessarily requires a prosecutor’s professional judgment,” wrote the Boulder County Attorney’s Office.

In his order, Martínez agreed Sudano was immune from liability for presenting evidence to the grand jury, even if the evidence was false. He found it to be a “more difficult question” whether Sudano’s meeting with the accuser about a path forward was entitled to immunity.

Ultimately, however, Martínez concluded the allegations against Sudano were insufficient to show she fabricated evidence. Chiefly, it was unclear what Sudano actually said or did.

“To reiterate, allegations that Sudano secretly met with (the accuser) after the preliminary hearing to discuss ‘many things’; directed (the accuser) to contact Byars for ‘additional questioning;’ ’emboldened’ (the accuser) to revise her allegations against Spinelli; and ‘worked together’ with Byars to further pursue the criminal prosecution,” he wrote, “are weak, vague, and threadbare.”

The case is Spinelli v. Byars et al.