The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that defendants challenging their convictions may, in certain circumstances, be entitled to receive the information the prosecution already handed over for trial at no cost.

The justices rejected the argument that defendants seeking postconviction relief must use the open records law specific to criminal justice records, which prosecutors’ offices have the discretion to partially or completely withhold. However, the Supreme Court stopped short of concluding that judges can order disclosure of the trial evidence in every postconviction case.

“Although a defendant with the financial means to pay for copies is free to spend his money to pursue frivolous claims, the state isn’t obligated to subsidize that pursuit,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III in the May 4 opinion.

Instead, Hood continued, a defendant with appointed counsel can receive trial documents if he “has shown that he may be entitled to postconviction relief based on specific facts likely mentioned in pretrial discovery, which is unavailable to postconviction counsel, and which would help the defendant substantiate his allegations.”

Ramsey Lama, a former trial judge who now specializes in postconviction relief, called the decision a “meaningful step,” but said the court’s ruling posed a practical problem for defendants seeking relief on valid grounds.

“The petitioner must point to specific facts in the discovery that would substantiate alleged errors. Yet, a petitioner usually cannot identify those facts until reviewing the discovery itself,” he said. “For me, it is common sense that a defendant needs discovery in the postconviction phase of the case.”

Lama said the accessibility pitfall resembles one the Supreme Court created months ago — with an opinion also authored by Hood — when it concluded that a defendant failed to show how uninvestigated, unavailable DNA evidence would have entitled him to relief.

In contrast to direct appeals of criminal convictions, which usually allege errors before trial, at trial or at sentencing, defendants also have the opportunity to seek postconviction relief directly in the trial courts. That pathway, however, is available only for specific reasons, such as constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence — assertions that would require some investigation.

Following Keevin Bell II’s 2019 murder conviction in Jefferson County, he unsuccessfully appealed. In 2024, representing himself, he filed a petition for postconviction relief, contending his trial lawyers acted unreasonably in handling certain aspects of his defense.

District Court Judge Ryan P. Loewer concluded at least one of Bell’s claims had merit. He appointed defense counsel to investigate.

Bell’s attorney, Moorea E. Diamond, then emailed the DA’s office because a “significant amount of discovery” was missing from the files of Bell’s trial lawyers.

“I am aware that it is the policy of your office not to provide discovery” in postconviction cases, she wrote. But without “a complete copy of the discovery that was provided to trial counsel, we will be unable to be effective.”

Senior Deputy District Attorney Rebecca Adams responded that Diamond should file an open records request and pay the associated costs.

Diamond asked Loewer to order the prosecution to turn over the evidence they already had provided Bell’s trial lawyers. She argued the DA’s process would cost thousands of dollars and would produce redacted files that may not be helpful.

In a May 2025 order, Loewer noted there was “no rule, no statute, and no inherent authority” compelling prosecutors to turn over their trial-related evidence to postconviction defense attorneys. It was possible that the constitutional right to due process required disclosure, but Loewer determined Bell had no such right under the circumstances.

Bell’s lawyers turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that their own ability to provide effective assistance to Bell was imperiled if they could not access the trial evidence. Further, they pointed out that trial judges across Colorado have reached different conclusions about their ability to order a DA’s office to hand over the files.

The Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, which represents defendants when the public defender’s office has a conflict, echoed that there is no uniform approach to the issue.

“In some jurisdictions, prosecutors automatically disclose to postconviction counsel a complete copy of the discovery that was previously provided to trial counsel. Those prosecutors simply upload the discovery to the eDiscovery website without any issue or objection. It costs nothing,” wrote attorney Krista Schelhaas. “In other jurisdictions, prosecutors refuse to disclose to postconviction counsel a copy of the discovery that was previously provided to trial counsel.”

Meanwhile, the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council urged the Supreme Court to consider the logistical and financial challenges faced by prosecutors’ offices.

“Depending on the age of the case, prosecutors and other staff may need to review voluminous paper files or electronic records to approximate what was originally produced without inadvertently releasing privileged or otherwise non-discoverable information. All that takes a lot of time,” wrote Denver Senior Deputy District Attorney Richard Lee.

The Supreme Court agreed it needed to weigh in because of the wide variation in how prosecutors’ offices handle the disclosure question in postconviction cases. Hood noted that defendants are generally not entitled to evidence in postconviction cases, save for a few existing exceptions.

However, the court recognized that postconviction counsel must also provide constitutionally effective assistance, which may require them to review trial information. Consequently, judges can direct prosecutors’ offices to disclose those files.

“To hold otherwise — that is, to flatly prohibit such orders — would elevate administrative ease for district attorneys over the effectiveness of postconviction counsel in fulfilling their assigned role in a system that our state government created,” Hood wrote.

Lama, the former trial judge, said the legislature should go further and ensure that self-represented defendants can review trial-related documents for errors so that they may raise them in time through a postconviction petition.

“The General Assembly should create a statutory right to postconviction discovery paralleling the prosecution’s (disclosure) obligation at trial,” he said. “That ends the case-by-case satellite litigation Bell invites, ensures uniformity across districts, and aligns Colorado’s postconviction process with the equal-protection principles the court just endorsed.”

The case is People v. Bell.