People v. Ray, 252 P.3d 1042

Ray was sentenced to death for murdering a key prosecution witness and an accomplice; the prosecution sought post-conviction discovery of witnesses' addresses in the witness protection program.
The trial court lifted a protective order, ordering disclosure of thirteen witnesses' addresses to post-conviction counsel, some in the witness protection program.
The court framed a balancing test: extraordinary or compelling threat to witness safety vs materiality of addresses to post-conviction proceedings.
Evidence showed threats and killings by Ray and associates, including the murder of a witness and threats against other witnesses; witnesses were in or protected by witness protection.
Post-conviction counsel argued materiality to investigate trial counsel performance, impeachment, and mitigating evidence; the prosecution argued safety concerns outweighed materiality.
This original proceeding affirmed that the trial court abused its discretion and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is original C.A.R. 21 review proper here?	Prosecution argues original review appropriate to prevent unsafe disclosure.	Ray argues issues could be reviewed on appeal; suggests not necessary here.	Yes; original jurisdiction proper.
Did the trial court correctly balance safety vs materiality?	Threats and past killings show extraordinary risk; addresses material to post-conviction.	Counsel should have access to addresses for reinvestigation; materiality outweighs safety in some cases.	No; court abused discretion by lifting protective order.
Should witnesses' addresses be disclosed in post-conviction for safety reasons?	Addresses may be necessary for post-conviction investigation into counsel performance and impeachment.	Safety concerns and witness protection override such discovery; no sufficient materiality.	No; extraordinary threat outweighed materiality, nondisclosure required.
Does the evidence justify special handling given prior witness murder and culture of retaliation?	Threats are ongoing; risk justifies non-disclosure to protect safety.	Not at issue; focus is on materiality and confrontation rights only.	Recognized extraordinary threat; supports nondisclosure.

People v. Dist. Court, 933 P.2d 22 (Colo. 1997) (balancing safety against materiality of witness information)
People v. Thurman, 787 P.2d 646 (Colo. 1990) (witness safety vs confrontation rights; materiality standard)
People ex rel. Dunbar v. Dist. Court, 494 P.2d 841 (Colo. 1972) (personal safety exception to confrontation rights)
People v. Rodriguez, 786 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1989) (protective nondisclosure when materiality is outweighed by safety)
People v. Baltazar, 241 P.3d 941 (Colo. 2010) (limits on right to discovery in criminal cases; trial-right basis)
People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010) (capital post-conviction discovery and rights framework)