2018 CO 55
Colo.2018Background
- Sir Mario Owens was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 2008; post-conviction motions under Crim. P. 32.2 were filed and denied in 2017.
- Owens alleged the 18th Judicial District Attorney failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and sought disqualification and a special prosecutor; portions of the post-conviction record were sealed by protective order over Owens’s objection.
- The Colorado Independent moved to unseal those sealed records, arguing the public has a constitutional (First Amendment and Article II, §10) presumptive right of access to court records in criminal cases.
- The district court denied the unsealing motion; the Independent sought original relief in the Colorado Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21 limited to the constitutional access claim.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutional questions de novo and declined to recognize a broad constitutional right of public access to all criminal justice records filed with the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Amendment guarantees a presumptive public right to access all court records in criminal cases | The First Amendment creates a presumptive right of access to judicial records filed in criminal matters | No such broad First Amendment right exists; access to proceedings is distinct from access to filed records | Rejected: Court refused to recognize a blanket First Amendment right to all criminal case records |
| Whether Article II, §10 of the Colorado Constitution guarantees presumptive access to court records | State constitutional press/access clause provides a presumptive right equivalent to the First Amendment | Colorado Constitution does not create a sweeping, previously unrecognized right to all criminal records | Rejected: Court declined to interpret state constitution as guaranteeing unfettered access |
| Whether prior Colorado precedent (e.g., Wingfield) supports a constitutional right to inspect court files | Wingfield supports public access as a constitutional protection | Wingfield permitted discretionary inspection and did not establish a constitutional right | Held: Wingfield does not establish a constitutional right; inspection remains discretionary |
| Whether recognizing a constitutional right would conflict with existing statutes and procedures (e.g., Criminal Justice Records Act) | Constitutional right would override statutory confidentiality and open-records scheme | Recognizing a sweeping right would disrupt comprehensive statutory framework for criminal records | Held: Court declined to create a constitutional rule that would undermine statutory regimes |
Key Cases Cited
- Times-Call Publ’g Co. v. Wingfield, 410 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1966) (inspection of court records permissible at court’s discretion; no absolute right to examine)
- Lanphere & Urbaniak v. Colorado, 21 F.3d 1508 (10th Cir. 1994) (no general First Amendment right to access criminal justice records)
- United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1985) (distinguishes public right to attend trials from claimed right to access court files)
- People v. Bryant, 94 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2004) (example of Colorado Supreme Court addressing public access via original jurisdiction)