Opinion ID: 6325142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Requests for Orders and Use of SDTs

Text: ¶51 Because the waiver in section 18-1-417 is automatic, it is improper for the prosecution to request an order or use an SDT to attempt to obtain from the allegedly ineffective counsel the confidential information subject to the statutory waiver. Relatedly, because the waiver is cabined by the nature of the ineffective assistance claim filed, it is improper for the prosecution to ever seek confidential information that’s unrelated to the claim. Thus, whether through an order or an SDT, attempting to compel the production of the allegedly ineffective counsel’s entire case file without regard to the nature of the ineffective assistance claim submitted runs afoul of Colorado law. ¶52 Here, after alternate defense counsel filed the Crim. P. 35(c) claim, the prosecution requested an order finding a waiver of the attorney-client privilege between Cortes-Gonzalez and the public defender. The prosecution then served an SDT on the public defender to compel the production of her case files. But there was no need for the court’s intervention. Section 18-1-417(1) says as much. See § 18-1-417(1) (eliminating the “need for an order by the court that confidentiality has been waived” with respect to information related to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim advanced). ¶53 Because the filing of the ineffective assistance claim automatically waived Cortes-Gonzalez’s attorney-client privilege with the public defender, the 25 prosecution was entitled to access any confidential information related to the claim. All the prosecution had to do was properly request that information from the public defender. ¶54 Moreover, the prosecution committed an additional error—it subpoenaed the public defender’s case files in their entirety. The prosecution had no authority to request production of the entire case files. Inasmuch as the statutory waiver is limited to the confidential information related to the ineffective assistance claim lodged, the prosecution was entitled to access only that information. ¶55 The prosecution and the district court believed, however, that the SDT served on the public defender was necessary to allow the court to conduct an in camera review of the unredacted copies of the case files. As we discuss next, the prosecution and the district court incorrectly assumed that the prosecution is always entitled to have the court perform an in camera review of the allegedly ineffective counsel’s case files.