Colorado

Overview

Colorado has emerged as a national leader in the legal codification of law enforcement accountability and prosecutorial disclosure obligations. In response to public pressure and a growing awareness of systemic misconduct, the state has enacted legislation that directly addresses Brady and Giglio compliance, most notably SB 18-203 and HB 19-1119, which require public access to officer credibility records and mandate disclosure of impeachment material. Colorado is one of a handful of states that explicitly require prosecutors to maintain and share “Giglio Lists” or “Brady Lists,” with enforcement provisions built into statute. However, practical challenges remain. Many agencies inconsistently apply these mandates, local resistance persists, and the absence of a centralized oversight body weakens the uniformity of enforcement. Nevertheless, Colorado's commitment to structural reform stands as one of the most robust in the nation.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Colorado’s legal system features 22 judicial districts, each with independently elected district attorneys. The state judiciary includes county courts, district courts, a court of appeals, and a supreme court. Prosecutors are bound by both constitutional disclosure obligations and specific state statutes requiring the maintenance and sharing of officer credibility information.

Under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, the prosecution must disclose all material that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or reduce punishment, including evidence that may impeach law enforcement witnesses. This duty has been bolstered by state law, particularly SB 18-203, which requires prosecutors to disclose to the defense any information indicating that a peace officer has committed acts of dishonesty or bias.

Colorado has also created a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) decertification process that allows the public to access records of law enforcement discipline, although access to details is limited. Still, Colorado's framework demonstrates a clear legislative intent to promote transparency and maintain officer credibility as a matter of public interest and constitutional duty.

Historical Context

For much of the 20th century, Colorado, like most states, relied on local discretion and a culture of silence to manage law enforcement misconduct. Brady obligations were observed sporadically, often only when defense attorneys filed motions. There was no formal structure to track officers with integrity issues, and public access to records was severely limited.

However, high-profile misconduct cases—particularly in Denver and Aurora—began to reveal systemic failures in policing and prosecutorial oversight. The killing of Elijah McClain in 2019, and the subsequent mishandling of both the investigation and medical response, galvanized public demand for reform. The result was a series of legislative actions between 2018 and 2021 that pushed Colorado to the forefront of national disclosure reform.

The passage of SB 217 (2020), which mandated body camera use, eliminated qualified immunity at the state level, and expanded public access to use-of-force investigations, reflected a profound shift in the state’s approach to policing and transparency. These reforms laid the groundwork for the full integration of Brady and Giglio compliance into statutory law.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Colorado’s Constitution ensures due process and equal protection under Article II, Sections 25 and 16. These provisions align with federal due process standards and form the foundation for disclosure obligations.

Key statutes and rules include:

• C.R.S. § 16-2.5-502 (SB 18-203): Requires that any prosecuting agency disclose to the defense any known history of law enforcement dishonesty or bias.

• C.R.S. § 24-31-303: Governs POST certification and the decertification process, which includes dishonesty as a disqualifying offense.

• HB 19-1119: Codifies access to internal affairs records and requires that public records be released unless clearly exempt.

• Rule 16, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure: Mandates disclosure of any material that may be favorable to the accused or relate to witness credibility, including law enforcement witnesses.

Together, these provisions place Colorado among the few states where disclosure obligations are not just interpretive or discretionary—but codified with enforcement mechanisms.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Colorado courts have reinforced prosecutorial disclosure obligations through case law:

• People v. Dist. Court (Simpson), 925 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1996): Affirmed the duty to disclose material impeachment evidence under both federal and state law.

• People v. Bueno, 626 P.2d 1167 (Colo. App. 1981): Held that suppression of credibility evidence relating to a key witness violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

• People v. Herrera, 2015 COA 116: Clarified that the obligation to disclose impeachment evidence includes internal affairs complaints relevant to the officer's credibility.

These rulings demonstrate Colorado courts’ recognition that Giglio material is essential to a fair trial and not simply a matter of prosecutorial strategy.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Colorado POST governs training and certification for peace officers and requires reporting of misconduct by law enforcement agencies. POST may revoke or suspend certifications for lying under oath, falsifying documents, or other credibility-related infractions. While POST maintains a list of decertified officers, it does not explicitly maintain a Brady List.

Prosecutors in Colorado’s 22 judicial districts are responsible for creating and maintaining Giglio Lists. The structure and contents of these lists vary, and there is no unified statewide database. The Colorado District Attorneys’ Council has encouraged offices to adopt formal policies, and some—like the Denver and Boulder District Attorneys—have gone further by creating standardized procedures for reviewing and disclosing officer misconduct.

Training on disclosure obligations is provided by the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council and required as part of CLE for prosecutors. However, some defense attorneys report inconsistent practices across counties, especially in rural areas where oversight is limited.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

In addition to POST’s disciplinary authority, the Colorado Attorney General has independent investigatory powers under recent legislation, particularly AB 1506 and SB 217. Civilian oversight boards exist in several cities, including Denver and Aurora, but vary in authority and effectiveness.

While the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) oversees attorney discipline, few prosecutors have faced public reprimand or sanction for Brady violations. Nonetheless, the state bar and judicial ethics boards have the authority to investigate and impose discipline in cases of misconduct.

Colorado has no single agency responsible for auditing Brady List compliance or verifying that prosecutors meet disclosure obligations. Without this layer of independent review, compliance remains largely dependent on internal policy and professional culture.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Elijah McClain Case (2019–2023) – McClain, a 23-year-old Black man, died after being forcibly detained by Aurora police and injected with ketamine by paramedics. Investigations revealed discrepancies in officer reports and inconsistencies in body camera footage. Though not a classic Brady case, the failure to document and report misconduct triggered significant reform efforts, including new disclosure laws and oversight protocols.

2. Michael Mosher (2016) – A Weld County sheriff’s deputy, Mosher was found to have lied on police reports and during internal investigations. Though eventually decertified, Mosher had testified in numerous criminal cases without defense attorneys being made aware of his credibility issues—a clear Giglio lapse that prompted policy reform within the DA’s office.

3. Sterling Police Department Audit (2021) – Following a pattern of excessive force complaints, multiple officers were found to have falsified reports and failed to activate body cameras. Brady compliance failures were discovered through civil litigation, not prosecutorial review, leading to broader concerns about rural department accountability.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases illustrate both progress and pitfalls in Colorado’s system. While legislative reform has created clear disclosure obligations, actual enforcement often depends on whistleblowers, journalists, or civil attorneys rather than built-in institutional safeguards. Disparate practices between counties leave room for unjust outcomes, and prosecutorial reluctance to act on known officer misconduct continues to undermine trust. Still, the state has demonstrated that legal reforms can alter both policy and public expectations around truthfulness in law enforcement.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Centralized Giglio List: Each DA’s office maintains its own list, leading to fragmentation and inconsistency.

• Limited POST Disclosure Powers: POST can revoke certifications but lacks authority to enforce prosecutorial disclosure.

• Rural Resistance: Smaller jurisdictions sometimes fail to comply with state mandates due to lack of resources or political resistance.

• No Audit Mechanism: There is no agency that checks whether Brady obligations are being met uniformly across the state.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Though Colorado has passed some of the most advanced reforms in the country, the absence of mandatory statewide standards for Brady list format, frequency, or access has allowed uneven implementation. Political resistance, particularly from rural sheriffs and prosecutors, has diluted some of the practical impacts of these reforms. Moreover, without centralized reporting, the state lacks a comprehensive picture of officer misconduct or prosecutorial compliance.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Create a Centralized Giglio Database: Mandate that all prosecuting agencies contribute to a state-managed list of officers with sustained credibility concerns.

2. Audit Brady Compliance Statewide: Establish a unit within the Attorney General’s Office to perform annual audits of disclosure practices in each judicial district.

3. Strengthen POST Reporting Requirements: Require POST to maintain and share records of officers with any sustained dishonesty findings, not just those who are decertified.

4. Standardize Prosecutorial Protocols: Require each DA to adopt a uniform written policy for Giglio disclosure and share it publicly.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Public Access to Giglio Records: Expand public access to Brady-related records through an online database, similar to SB 1421 in California.

2. Mandatory Disclosure Training: Require CLE courses on Brady and Giglio obligations for all active prosecutors and peace officers.

3. Link Decertification to Disclosure Failures: Include prosecutorial failures to disclose as reportable misconduct under state bar disciplinary rules.

4. Enhance Civilian Oversight: Encourage counties to establish or strengthen independent police oversight bodies with authority to review and report on Giglio-related misconduct.

Conclusion

Colorado represents a bold and deliberate effort to bring candor and accountability to the center of its justice system. With a strong legal framework, public support for reform, and growing political will, the state has already made significant strides. But without centralized enforcement, uniformity in practice, and robust audit mechanisms, disclosure obligations remain vulnerable to local discretion and administrative neglect. Colorado has the laws in place—now it must build the infrastructure and culture to ensure those laws are consistently and courageously enforced.