The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that trial judges may order Jefferson County prosecutors to disclose information related to the criminal prosecution of a DNA analyst accused of misconduct, but defendants seeking those files cannot rely on the order alone to gain access.

Yvonne “Missy” Woods is a former Colorado Bureau of Investigation DNA scientist who stands accused of intentionally deleting data, manipulating procedures and compromising criminal evidence. She faces 102 felony counts in Jeffco alleging systemic misconduct and is awaiting trial.

Last year, after the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial, Adams County defendant Juan Manuel Castorena sought to obtain the criminal file in Woods’ prosecution from the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office, which is not in the same jurisdiction as Adams County. Woods had handled evidence in Castorena’s original prosecution and testified as a witness.

However, the Jeffco DA’s office “has resisted attempts to obtain the file,” wrote the prosecution in Adams County.

In response, District Court Judge Brett Martin issued an order to produce Woods’ investigative file, notwithstanding the fact that a different DA’s office was involved.

“District courts have state-wide jurisdiction,” he wrote.

The First Judicial District Attorney’s Office appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the proper procedure was for the defense to use a subpoena to access the file, with all safeguards built into that process. Moreover, Senior Appellate Deputy District Attorney Rebecca A. Adams noted two judges in Weld County had recently concluded, unlike Martin, that they lacked jurisdiction over the Jeffco prosecutors.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, representing Martin, argued that he had complied with the rule’s text in ordering disclosure. But even if the subpoena requirement applied, the Jeffco DA’s office was served with Martin’s order to the same effect.

The Korey Wise Innocence Project, which provides legal and investigative services to convicted defendants asserting their innocence, also argued the straightforward process Martin employed was valid.

“Missy Woods’s misconduct presents a major crisis for Colorado’s criminal justice system. She intentionally altered the results of DNA testing in hundreds of criminal cases during her three-decade career,” wrote attorney Jud Lohnes. “KWIP’s primary concern is that Mr. Castorena and similarly situated individuals obtain the discovery needed to secure their rights to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.”

By 5-1, the Supreme Court decided Martin could order a non-party to the criminal case to disclose information to the defense. However, it was more complicated than simply issuing a decision.

Justice William W. Hood III, in the Jan. 12 majority opinion, noted the two types of authority at play: “subject matter jurisdiction,” meaning a judge’s ability to hear a case, and “personal jurisdiction,” meaning power over a particular party.

Martin relied on the rule compelling prosecutors and “other government personnel” to disclose materials. But to carry out the order, a different rule applied, requiring service of the DA’s office with a subpoena to produce the information. Moreover, the defense has to satisfy several factors demonstrating the materials exist, are necessary to the case and do not amount to a “fishing expedition.”

“Therefore, the court’s inherent authority doesn’t provide a trial court with the authority to order a nonparty in a criminal case to disclose materials in its possession,” wrote Hood. “Although defense counsel physically mailed and emailed notice of the order to the 1st DA, knowledge of the existence of an order may not substitute for valid service.”

Justice Richard L. Gabriel dissented. He argued the majority added an unnecessary step to the process because the Jeffco DA’s office had, in fact, received Martin’s order describing the information sought.

“In these circumstances, I believe that the First Judicial District Attorney’s office has waived any objection to the manner in which it was served, and the trial court therefore properly exercised personal jurisdiction over that office,” Gabriel wrote.

He added that the effect of the decision is to delay the release of files in Castorena’s case and in similar cases. In the meantime, the Jeffco DA’s office is “vigorously resisting that effort, despite the obvious fact that at least some of the information will eventually need to be turned over to these criminal defendants,” Gabriel wrote.

The office of District Attorney Alexis King, which is prosecuting Woods, disagreed with Gabriel’s view that the “mere formality” of serving a subpoena could be bypassed.

“We are vigorously seeking to preserve the integrity of a high-profile criminal investigation and prosecution until its resolution to ensure a fair and unbiased trial for Ms. Woods,” read the statement.

The case is People v. Castorena.