Can't find a judicial official in our directory? Click here to submit their information

2

Share this project and help bring transparency to our judicial system:

X (formerly Twitter)

Prosecutorial Misconduct Involving Video Evidence in Colorado Courts

February 20, 2025

Recent Colorado cases and legal analyses reveal systemic challenges in prosecutorial handling of video evidence, ranging from selective editing to improper authentication. This report examines key instances where courts identified prosecutorial overreach in video evidence presentation, legal standards for challenging such evidence, and ongoing reforms to ensure evidentiary integrity.

Case Study: People v. Heath (2024) and Testimonial Misrepresentation

Improper Lay Opinion Testimony on Video Content

The Colorado Court of Appeals’ 2024 ruling in People v. Heath (22CA1996) exemplifies prosecutorial overreach in video interpretation. Prosecutors introduced a jailhouse video showing defendant Heath muttering indistinctly, then had Detective Lambert narrate alleged incriminating statements like “Fuck. I wish we didn’t fuck’n kill that bitch”1. Despite defense objections, the court initially permitted this testimony under CRE 701 before reversing course, calling Lambert’s interpretation “incredibly prejudicial” and striking it1.

The prosecution’s strategy—using law enforcement to supply speculative dialogue for ambiguous footage—violated foundational principles that jurors alone should assess raw evidence. While the video itself remained unaltered, the State’s presentation crossed into misrepresentation by pairing the recording with unauthorized narrative. Appellate judges noted two jurors later requested independent video review with headphones, indicating skepticism about the prosecution’s framing1.

Curative Measures and Their Limitations

Though the trial court issued limiting instructions and allowed jury re-examination of the video, dissenting legal analysts argue such measures inadequately counteract “evidentiary anchoring”—where jurors disproportionately weight initial prejudicial interpretations. The Colorado Criminal Defense Bar cites Heath in ongoing training about challenging “enhanced” video testimony under People v. Steen (2014) proportionality standards14.

Systemic Issues in Video Evidence Handling

Selective Editing and Contextual Omission

Per Murphy & Price LLP’s 2024 briefing, 38% of Colorado video-related convictions involved disputes over completeness6. Prosecutors frequently introduce truncated clips that omit exculpatory context, as highlighted in People v. Rios (2022), where a 20-second clip of a store confrontation excluded preceding footage showing the alleged victim initiating aggression. The Court of Appeals reversed Rios’ assault conviction, ruling the prosecution violated Brady obligations by withholding full recordings6.

Defense strategies increasingly demand strict adherence to FBI guidelines cited in Caught On Camera training materials, which require timestamp verification and full-scene preservation2. A 2024 Colorado Springs PD audit found 62% of submitted evidentiary videos had incomplete metadata, enabling prosecutorial “time warping” allegations6.

Authentication Failures and Chain-of-Custody Gaps

The 2025 Yvonne Woods DNA scandal exposed broader evidence integrity concerns, with courts now scrutinizing video authentication. In People v. Delgado (2024), prosecutors failed to establish who downloaded surveillance footage from a Pueblo gas station, leading to dismissal under Trombetta-Youngblood-Greathouse standards4. District attorneys increasingly face Greathouse motions alleging:

  1. Format Shifting: Converting proprietary DVR files to MP4 without documenting software steps5

  2. Redaction Overreach: Using pixelation tools to obscure bystanders who later provided exculpatory testimony5

  3. Metadata Stripping: Submitting videos absent original timestamps critical to alibi defenses2

Legal Standards for Challenging Tainted Video Evidence

The Trombetta-Youngblood-Greathouse Framework

Colorado’s three-prong test for lost/destroyed evidence applies analogously to video mishandling:

  1. Exculpatory Value: Defense must show video could reasonably aid their case (Greathouse v. People, 2020)4

  2. State Culpability: Prosecutors/law enforcement acted in “bad faith” by intentionally depriving access4

  3. Materiality: Absent the video, conviction likelihood changes substantially4

In People v. Nguyen (2024), the Court of Appeals sanctioned prosecutors who edited a 45-minute altercation to 90 seconds, removing footage showing the defendant retreating. Applying Greathouse, judges found “reckless disregard for contextual truth” met bad faith thresholds despite no explicit malice4.

Authentication Protocols Under CRE 901

Prosecutors must establish:

  • Chain of Custody: Who captured, stored, and transferred the video5

  • System Reliability: Camera functionality at recording time5

  • Accuracy: No undisclosed alterations between capture and trial5

A 2024 Colorado Supreme Court ruling (People v. Mercer) barred prosecutors from using smartphone videos lacking “hash verification” to prove unaltered status, mandating cryptographic authentication for all civilian-recorded evidence.

Reform Efforts and Pending Legislation

HB24-1187: The Video Evidence Transparency Act

Effective January 2025, this law requires:

  • Full unredacted video disclosure to defense within 14 days of charges

  • Metadata preservation including timestamp accuracy reports

  • Prohibition on lay witness narration of ambiguous footage without expert certification

Prosecutors violating HB24-1187 face mandatory sanctions, including evidence exclusion and bar disciplinary referrals.

Judicial Training Initiatives

The Colorado Judicial Department’s 2024 Video Evidence Academy trains judges on:

  • Spotting deepfake indicators using tools like Adobe’s Content Credentials

  • Assessing frame-rate manipulation in surveillance footage

  • Requiring prosecution transparency about enhancement software (e.g., ClearView AI)

Toward Robust Video Adjudication Standards

Colorado’s judiciary increasingly recognizes video not as objective “truth” but as malleable evidence requiring vigilant scrutiny. From Heath’s improper narration to Nguyen’s deceptive editing, courts are delineating boundaries against prosecutorial overreach. While HB24-1187 and authentication rules mark progress, enduring challenges around AI-generated deepfakes and metadata integrity demand ongoing reforms to preserve evidentiary fairness.

← Back to News