Criminal Justice

Perez v. State of Colorado

In this case, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether, and to what extent, a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to discover potentially exculpatory evidence should trump state statutory privileges that otherwise would otherwise shield that evidence.

Case Summary

In 2014, Colorado prosecutors charged Robert A. Perez with murdering his wife.  Mr. Perez maintained his innocence, arguing that his wife had died by suicide.  To support his theory, he issued a subpoena to the medical provider that held records from psychological treatment his wife had been receiving.  The government objected, and the trial court agreed to quash Mr. Perez’s subpoena on the ground that the records were protected by Colorado’s psychotherapist-patient privilege laws.  Indeed, the trial court refused even to review the evidence in private to determine if it contained any exculpatory evidence relevant to Mr. Perez’s defense, a process known as in camera review.  Mr. Perez was convicted and appealed the trial court’s decision to withhold the evidence to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that, by refusing to review the medical records at issue in camera, the trial court had violated his constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause, Compulsory Process Clause, and the Confrontation Clause.  The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.  The Colorado Supreme Court rejected Mr. Perez’s petition for a writ of certiorari, and he filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of the United States.

CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Mr. Perez’s petition for a writ of certiorari, urging the court to grant the petition and reverse the decision of the court below.

Our brief details the history of unjust common-law practices, dating back to seventeenth-century England, that routinely deprived accused persons of the right to present a robust defense.  As we explain in our brief, the Framers adopted the Sixth Amendment against that background to guarantee, in part, that all persons would have “the right . . . to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in [their] favor” in criminal trials.  This right has long been understood to include the right to subpoena potentially exculpatory evidence.  By denying Mr. Perez even in camera review of potentially exculpatory evidence contained in his wife’s medical records, the state of Colorado has undermined Mr. Perez’s constitutional right to access evidence in his defense.

Case Timeline

More from Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice
July 23, 2020

“We Do Not Want to be Hunted”: The Right To Be Secure and Our Constitutional Story of Race and Policing

Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Edwards v. Vannoy

In Edwards v. Vannoy, the Supreme Court is considering whether its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana—guaranteeing criminal defendants in both state and federal court the right to a unanimous jury verdict—applies retroactively to cases on...
Criminal Justice
July 29, 2020

Toward a Fuller Constitutional Story: Race, Policing, & Equality

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center
Our nation is grappling anew with law enforcement violence against African Americans.  For too long, we...
Participants: Elizabeth B. Wydra, David H. Gans, Roy Austin (Moderator), Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (Keynote Address), Chiraag Bains, Professor Alexis Karteron
Criminal Justice
June 25, 2020

Prison Guards Who Locked Naked Inmate in Cell Filled With ‘Massive Amounts’ of Feces Got Qualified Immunity

A group of prison guards who forced an inmate to live in two cells infested...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By Billy Binion
Criminal Justice
June 24, 2020

#PurpleChairChat Episode 5: Race, Policing, and the Constitution

CAC’s President Elizabeth Wydra, Civil Rights Director David H. Gans, and Director of Policy Kristine...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Kristine A. Kippins, David H. Gans
Criminal Justice
June 9, 2020

Democrats push bigger role for courts to curb police misconduct

Roll Call
A House bill released Monday to address police misconduct includes provisions that would allow more...
By: David H. Gans, Todd Ruger