Colorado Court of Appeals reverses sanction against Denver DA for pattern of discovery violations

The Colorado Court of Appeals this month reversed a discovery sanction against the Denver District Attorney's Office after a judge found prosecutors violated a man's rights two years ago when they turned over an exculpatory 911 recording just six days before his jury trial was set to begin.

Denver District Court Judge Eric Johnson dismissed all of the charges against the defendant to punish prosecutors for what he said was a larger pattern and practice of discovery violations by the Denver District Attorney's Office, a sanction that has become significantly more common across the state in recent years as the Denver DA's office and others have faced scrutiny over flawed practices.

The Court of Appeals left alone the judge's discovery violation finding but rejected the sanction in a July 2 opinion, finding that Johnson did not give prosecutors a real chance to contest the judge's finding of a broader pattern of such misconduct within the Denver District Attorney's Office before he dismissed the attempted-murder case.

"Defense counsel never even mentioned a pattern and practice of violations before the court ruled from the bench," the opinion reads. "Instead, the court raised the issue sua sponte (on its own) in its bench ruling. As a result, the prosecutor had no advance notice that the court believed that the District Attorney's Office engaged in a pattern and practice of discovery violations or, based on that finding, that the court would impose the most severe possible discovery sanction."

Judges must give prosecutors the opportunity to research and respond to allegations of a pattern of misconduct before imposing a sanction, the Court of Appeals panel found. They noted their ruling is the first time the issue has been considered in a reported case, that is, a published opinion that sets legal precedent.

The higher court sent the case back to Denver District Court for a new sanctions hearing on the discovery violation. They noted in their opinion that Johnson could once again dismiss the case as a sanction against prosecutors, as long as prosecutors have an opportunity to be heard first.

In the underlying case, which appears to be sealed and no longer public, defendant Ahmad Ahmed was charged with attempted murder and four counts of assault after authorities said he stabbed a person in front of a Family Dollar store in 2022. Two of the victim's friends then threw rocks at Ahmed to drive him away, prosecutors contended. Ahmed later claimed he acted in self-defense.

Prosecutors did not share five 911 call recordings regarding the stabbing with defense attorneys until six days before Ahmed's jury trial was scheduled to start in 2024. In one of those recordings, the 911 caller described Ahmed as the victim in the incident, not the assailant, and described the other people throwing rocks at Ahmed.

Ahmed's defense attorneys immediately sought out the witness, who said he was willing to testify in the case but that he was traveling and would not be available for the jury trial scheduled six days later.

That prompted Ahmed's defense team to object to the discovery violation in court, arguing that the 911 caller's account was exculpatory and that prosecutors should have disclosed the recording to the defense team much earlier in the case, as required by Colorado's rules of evidence. The defense asked Johnson to dismiss the case or issue other sanctions.

Prosecutors argued that the witness's account was not exculpatory because the 911 caller saw only the second half of the incident - the rock-throwing - and not the preceding stabbing.

Johnson agreed with the defense, finding prosecutors violated Ahmed's due process rights, and then took the extra step of finding that such misconduct was a pattern within the Denver District Attorney's Office. Johnson cited two additional cases, one in which a prosecutor turned over crime scene photos "days before trial" and another in which the prosecutor turned over videos "a week before trial," according to the opinion. He dismissed the case in part because it could not be rescheduled before a speedy trial deadline.

"The court concluded, considering the age and nature of the case, as well as the District Attorney's Office's recurring pattern of late discovery, that dismissal was the appropriate sanction," the opinion reads.

A spokeswoman for the district attorney's office declined to comment and James Karbach, a spokesman for the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, declined to comment since the criminal case is ongoing.

The Denver District Attorney's Office has faced recent scrutiny for its discovery practices.

The office in October acknowledged that prosecutors failed to disclose police records to defendants in as many as 756 cases since 2022. Denver judges also found discovery violations in at least seven cases during the first few months of 2025, prompting at least two mid-trial dismissals.

Colorado officials are considering changing how the discovery system works after a task force found in December that the state's system needs to be updated.

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.