10-cv-02930-JLK (D. Colo.)

Filed by pro bono counsel at Morrison & Foerster LLP, this lawsuit sought to invalidate Colorado Revised Statute § 16-7-301(4), which required a defendant to meet with a prosecutor before being assigned counsel. In Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191, 213 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution attaches at “a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction.”

NACDL's work on pretrial advocacy in Colorado induding the publication of the Colorado Bail Manual. [Released September 2015]

NACDL issued a groundbreaking new report on restoring and reforming the grand jury system. This research reflects an in-depth study of grand jury reform in two states – New York and Colorado – and produces with four reform recommendations. [Released November 2011]

NACDL is providing resources regarding the Criminalization of Pregnancy and Reproductive Health to the criminal defense community. Resources are provided without warranty or guarantee. Please consult the laws and rules of your state and local authorities. Please log in to access them. Membership is NOT required.

Abortion is legal in Colorado at all stages of pregnancy, subject to parental notification for minors. A pregnant person cannot be punished for any conduct “based on the potential, actual, or perceived impact on the pregnancy, the pregnancy’s outcomes, or the pregnant individual’s health.”

See the various issues on which NACDL has conducted criminal justice advocacy in Colorado. Scroll to the bottom of the page to see active legislation in Colorado that NACDL is tracking. 

NACDL advocated for legislation to increase police transparency and accountability and to prevent excessive force.

20^th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 18-20, 2021 | Held Virtually

Police departments across the country are increasing using predictive algorithms to decide where to patrol and who to investigate. These tools are also being used to create databases that label people as threats and feed them into the criminal legal system.

20^th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 18-20, 2021 | Held Virtually

This panel highlights policing reforms adopted over the last year and what still needs to be done.

NACDL's 19th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 17-19, 2020 | Held Virtually
Policing in America: Policing the Police

Policies and rulings on lengthy imprisonment terms in Colorado.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss.

Argument: It is axiomatic that due process principles restrict criminal liability to violations of laws of which the accused has fair notice. Criminal liability may not attach to conduct that is beyond the scope of an unambiguous criminal proscription— and all close calls must be resolved in favor of the defendant. Where a criminal violation is not supported by clear, existing authority—or where it is even a close question—the reviewing court should dismiss the criminal indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)(v). Doing so ensures fairness by avoiding the grave harms associated with criminal prosecution—which frequently cannot be remedied by eventual reversal on appeal—while preserving the Department’s ability to pursue the prosecution if a reviewing court sees the law differently. These principles strongly support dismissal of the indictment here. Existing authority does not support criminal liability on the basis of a no-solicitation agreement, which no court has ever held to be a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Allowing the prosecution to proceed in these circumstances would be inconsistent with existing law and the Department’s own policy statements—and would thus violate due process. 

Information on the policy and history of recording custodial interrogations in Colorado.

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in Colorado

Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Defendant-Petitioner. 

Argument: Mr. Lucas is held in a county jail without bail pending trial on a charge of first degree murder. In this original proceeding, the Colorado Supreme Court will determine whether the trial erred in denying Mr. Lucas’ motion to require the sheriff to keep professional consultation visits confidential. The Sheriff has a policy to inform the district attorney of the professional consultation visits received by Mr. Lucas. The amicus brief argues that the right to prepare a defense in secret is a necessary corollary to a defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and the effective assistance of counsel. When the prosecution prematurely learns the identity of consulting defense experts, the prosecution gains an unfair advantage in trial preparation, rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. The Sheriff can only provide this information when the defendant is incarcerated pretrial, denying equal protection to indigent and otherwise non-bondable defendants. An express recognition that defendants must be granted a fair opportunity to prepare their defense with sufficient secrecy to protect their pretrial strategy from disclosure is consistent with reciprocal discovery rules which require disclose of defense experts only if they will be called as trial witnesses and with the attorney work-product doctrine. Defense lawyers will also be rendered constitutionally ineffective if forced to alter strategies for consulting with experts solely because a defendant is jailed pretrial.