Thanks for these links. This is an important story that brought public attention to a real problem and led directly to the adoption of CRCP 55.1. I agree with the CFOIC that this rule is a significant step forward in addressing the issue.
But it's important to be clear about what the issue was. Using then-existing discretion, Colorado judges suppressed information about cases not arbitrarily, but for specific reasons according to the article:
"According to interviews and analysis of cases that were later opened to the public, the reasons behind a suppression order are varied: Prosecutors don’t want to alarm other members of a drug ring as they’re being rounded up; the case involves a juvenile defendant; or law enforcement says a criminal investigation is ongoing. Civil cases have been suppressed as well, typically — though not all — to shield victims of abuse or sexual assaults from publicity."
...
"'Already in many cases, specifically gang and some domestic violence cases, the concern over an individual’s own safety is so strong that if you can’t provide some other assurance, even in the short-term, I think we’ll lose out on cooperation from a lot of key witnesses,” Brauchler said. “But the public should maintain the ability to scrutinize what we do, why we do it and how we go about that.'"
The article does not describe a consistent statewide pattern of abuse, but rather, lack of consistent statewide procedures and standards for suppressing and opening access to cases appears to have been a major factor, according to the article:
"'The Post’s analysis found that the number of suppressed cases varies dramatically from county to county.
Prosecutors in La Plata County, where Durango is the county seat, have suppressed 366 felony cases over the past five years, the most by any jurisdiction, records show. But those cases were nearly always unsuppressed once a defendant was arrested and brought to court, the longest taking two years, The Post found.
'It’s not uncommon to suppress a case until the defendant is arrested and the warrant served,” said Christian Champagne, district attorney for Colorado’s Sixth Judicial District that includes La Plata, Archuleta and San Juan counties. “Ours is an area where people come through and leave for long stretches of time.'"
The 2nd Judicial District (Denver City & County) had no suppressed cases: the 18th Judicial District (just south of Denver) had the most statewide.
It's also important to use the accurate number of cases that have remained suppressed.
"
Since 2013, there have been 6,707 cases suppressed by judges in Colorado, and the bulk of them were criminal cases, The Post found — misdemeanors first, then felonies, followed by civil court matters.
A judge’s suppression order was lifted in 3,631 of them, meaning the public can now access the cases, sometimes soon after a defendant was arrested or parties to a civil lawsuit were served with court papers, records show."
In sum, Colorado did not have a statewide standard regulating access to court proceedings and records, and although the
Post did not accuse any official of abuse of the discretion allowed, the article shows the existence of a need for such standards. We'll have to wait for cases to be decided to see how the more limited discretion allowed by Rule 55.1 will be applied.