Opinion ID: 2599821
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exculpatory Information and Professional Obligations

Text: Prosecutors have a constitutional and statutory obligation to disclose to the defense any material, exculpatory evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the accused. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86-87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). A prosecutor has a duty to disclose such evidence regardless of whether the accused requests disclosure; the prosecutor's duty of disclosure also encompasses impeachment evidence. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). Failure to disclose information helpful to the accused is a due process violation only if the information is material to either guilt or punishment. Salazar v. People, 870 P.2d 1215, 1220 (Colo.1994). The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability [3] that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 1221. The United States Supreme Court has enunciated several levels of standards to aid in determining whether the information is exculpatory for disclosure purposes: (1) evidence which may be merely helpful to the defense; (2) evidence which raised a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt; (3) evidence which is of such a character as to create a substantial likelihood of reversal. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 114 n. 22, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). Part I(a)(2) of the Colorado Criminal Procedure Rule 16 and Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d) obligate a prosecutor to disclose to defense counsel and the court any material or information within his possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the accused . . . except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal. See also In the Matter of Attorney C, 47 P.3d 1167, 1169-71 (Colo.2002) (discussing the prosecution's mandatory obligation to disclose exculpatory information). A prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory information may involve information received from a prior client that normally would be protected by attorney-client confidentiality. See Colo. RPC 1.6 (governing attorney-client confidentiality and its exceptions). In relevant part, Rule 1.6(a) states that [a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation. However, the comment to this rule states that an attorney may not disclose confidential information, unless authorized or required by other Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. Colo. RPC 1.6 cmt. (emphasis added). Additionally, the relevant conflict of interest rule provides that [a] lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation. Colo. RPC 1.9(a) (emphasis added). Prosecutors are subject to the conflict of interest requirements stated in Rule 1.9. Colo. RPC 1.11(d)(1) (Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee . . . is subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9). The comment following Rule 1.9 indicates that the underlying issue in determining if a lawyer has a conflict of interest is whether the lawyer was so involved in the matter that the subsequent representation can be justly regarded as a changing of sides in the matter in question. Matters are substantially related for the purpose of Rule 1.9(a) if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client's position in the subsequent matter. ABA Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 1.9 cmt. 3. Similarly, the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standard requires that a prosecutor who formerly represented a client in private practice should not use information obtained from that representation to the disadvantage of the former client, unless the rules of attorney-client confidentiality do not apply. ABA Criminal Justice Stds. 3-1.3(d). The accused's due process right to a fair trial and the constitutional, statutory, and ethical rules require a prosecuting attorney, if she or he wishes to remain on the case, to disclose exculpatory information even if it was obtained from a prior representation. In this situation, a prosecuting attorney has several options. She or he may obtain consent from the prior client waiving attorney-client confidentiality and authorizing disclosure of the exculpatory information. If consent is not obtained, she or he may (1) disqualify from prosecuting the accused and be screened from the office's prosecution of the case or (2) proceed with the prosecution, disclose to the court that she or he has exculpatory information, and reveal the information to the defense upon order of the court. Colo. RPC 1.6 cmt. A trial court can ask for and accept a prosecuting attorney's assurance that he or she has diligently reviewed the facts and circumstances of the prior representation and there is no exculpatory information required to be revealed by the constitution, statutes, and case law. This is so because, like all attorneys, the prosecuting attorney as an officer of the court must not lie or misrepresent facts to the court. Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) & (4); Colo. RPC 8.4; In the Matter of Pautler, 47 P.3d 1175, 1178-79 (Colo.2002). In addition, as a duty of office, a prosecutor, who wishes to continue prosecuting the case, must disclose to the court that he or she has exculpatory information and reveal that information if ordered to do so by the court.