The justices’ Monday ruling set aside the district court’s reasoning but did not decide that the CBI can withhold the records altogether. The lower court must make fuller findings before deciding whether Clark is entitled to the material.

Clark, represented by attorney Adam Frank, is seeking information about cases in which Woods used DNA testing methods similar to those used in his case. His lawyers say the records could help determine whether problems extended beyond Woods’ work on a single case. Frank said the court identified a procedural error but did not direct the district court to reach a different conclusion on disclosure.

Clark was convicted of first-degree murder in 2012 in the 1994 killing of Marty Grisham. He spent 12 years in prison before a Boulder district judge overturned the conviction in April 2025 and granted him a new trial. Clark is now out on bond. His retrial, previously scheduled for May, has no new date, Frank said.

Clark’s defense is seeking dismissal of the charges, arguing that alleged government misconduct undermined the case. His lawyers contend that Woods contaminated evidence and that the CBI failed to use safeguards against contamination. They also point to alleged juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Woods testified at Clark’s trial about DNA testing of evidence recovered from a lip balm container at the crime scene. After allegations about Woods’ work became public, an independent laboratory retested evidence. The district attorney’s office that prosecuted Clark supported vacating his conviction, citing the retest and claims of juror misconduct and ineffective counsel.

The records request concerns the state’s Forensic Science Integrity Act, passed after allegations about Woods came to light. The law provides for discovery related to wrongful action when a defendant receives notice from a district attorney or obtains a court order after filing a pleading identifying a crime-lab employee under investigation.

The Supreme Court said Clark had not received the required notice or requested a court order through that process. Although he had identified Woods as an employee under investigation, he did so before the law took effect, the court said. It also ruled that the law requires a defendant to request discovery first; a subpoena may be used only after that request is denied. Clark instead subpoenaed the CBI at the outset.

The subpoena sought information from thousands of other cases. The CBI argued that responding would take more than 2,000 staff hours and noted that Woods worked on about 2,700 cases using the relevant method. The state’s Attorney General’s office argued that Clark was seeking broad records to investigate a theory about CBI policies, rather than seeking evidence tied to known misconduct in his own DNA testing.

The ruling leaves the district court to make more complete findings on Clark’s request. The CBI and Attorney General’s office declined to comment, citing the ongoing case.