2. Defendant Cites No Case Law Or Statutes Which Actually Support His Request

DISTRICT COURT, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 1060 E. Second Ave., Durango, CO 81301 Phone Number: (970) 247-2304

Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO v.

Defendant: MARK ALLEN REDWINE ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ Christian Champagne - District Attorney, #36833 Case Number: 17 CR 343 Matthew Durkin, Special Deputy District Attorney, #28615 Fred Johnson, Special Deputy District Attorney, #42479 P.O. Drawer 3455, Durango, Colorado 81302 Phone Number: (970) 247-8850 Fax Number: (970) 259-0200

PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EVIDENCE [D-7] [PUBLIC ACCESS]

NOW COME the People, by and through Christian Champagne, District Attorney, in the County of La Plata, and hereby file their Response to Defendant’s Motion to Allow Confidential Defense Experts to be Present for Scientific Testing of Evidence [D-7], as follows:

1. The defendant seeks an order prohibiting the People from conducting any further scientific testing and to allow a confidential defense expert to be present during any testing of evidence.

2. Defendant cites no case law or statutes which actually support his request.

3. In fact, the cases cited by the defense to support the proposition that the right to counsel includes confidential experts does not relate to the use of experts to observe testing by the prosecution. In Miller v. District Court, 737 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1987) the Court only ruled that communications between the defendant and a defense retained psychologist were privileged, a ruling which was later vitiated by changes in the statutory scheme. Further, in Hutchison v. People, 742 P.2d 875 (Colo. 1987), the Court simply stated that the prosecution could not compel a defense expert to testify during the prosecution’s case-in-chief absent a waiver or compelling justification. 4. Neither of these cases, and no other authority require the People to submit to allowing a confidential defense expert to be present during any non-destructive scientific testing. In cases where the testing is consumptive/destructive, §16-3-309(2) suggests the a best practice might be to photograph or record the testing process for later defense review.

5. The People object to any order limiting our ability to test evidence as necessary and any order requiring the presence of confidential defense experts during any testing deemed necessary.

Wherefore, the People object to the relief requested by Defendant.

Respectfully submitted this August 18, 2017.

CHRISTIAN CHAMPAGNE DISTRICT ATTORNEY 6th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

/s/ Christian Champagne Christian Champagne #36833 District Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 8/18/2017, I delivered a true and correct copy of the foregoing to the parties of record via e-service

/s/ Christian Champagne Christian Champagne