A Colorado Springs defense attorney said the violations were a ‘shocking amount’

A Douglas County judge said prosecutors demonstrated a “pattern of neglect” by failing to provide evidence to the defense 52 times in an assault case, documents obtained by The Gazette show.

In an unpublished opinion, the Colorado Court of Appeals last week affirmed the dismissal of 10 charges in the case of Dontae Lahmar Burney, who faced 30 counts related to assault and child abuse.

His case was headed to trial until 23rd Judicial District Judge Daniel Warhola dismissed some of the charges in October 2025 after finding prosecutors failed to give materials and information to the defense over the course of six months. Called Rule 16 violations under Colorado law, they are more colloquially known as discovery violations.

In a statement, 23rd Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler said his office is implementing “significant” structural reforms designed to strengthen compliance and prevent future issues.

He also pointed to an issue of the law not keeping up with modern technology as the “primary reason” for discovery violations.

“Modern criminal cases routinely involve massive quantities of digital material, complex technological systems and evidence sources far beyond what the rule contemplated,” Brauchler said in an emailed statement Thursday.

In the past year, the office has received more than 45,000 hours of video evidence, Tom Mustin, a spokesperson with the 23rd Judicial District Attorney’s Office, told The Gazette. That excludes reports, photographs, audio recordings, physical evidence and other digital materials that also require review.

Brauchler said meaningful reform is necessary to ensure the discovery framework “reflects contemporary realities” while still protecting due process rights.

“Fifty-two times in one case that a prosecution failed to abide by their legal obligations is a, frankly, shocking amount,” said Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney Jeremy Loew, who is not associated with the case. “It creeps up on the side of intentionality, which would potentially give rise to a complete dismissal of the case.”

Warhola also found that prosecutors did not disclose information that damaged the credibility of a key witness — the alleged victim in the case. The judge cited case law Brady v. Maryland, a landmark Supreme Court decision that establishes that the prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant violates due process.

Favorable information may reduce a defendant’s potential sentence, go against the credibility of a witness or otherwise allow a jury to infer against a defendant’s guilt, according to a page from the Cornell Law School’s website.

Among the discovery violations are what Warhola called a “willful violation” of Rule 16 due to a paralegal’s redaction of an address in a forensic interview that could have been beneficial to the defense, according to the opinion.

Warhola decided neither the redaction nor suppression of information about the witness rose to the level of a Brady violation.

The court ultimately determined it would not pursue punitive action against the prosecution.

Prosecutors filed an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals, saying Warhola abused his discretion by dismissing the 10 charges, which, according to the opinion, were added after the alleged victim claimed Burney tampered with the lug nuts on her car in retaliation for his arrest.

These types of violations, Loew said, damage the public’s trust in the judicial system.

This is not the only case that was impacted by discovery violations recently.

On July 13, 11th Judicial District Judge Lauren Swan removed District Attorney Jeff Lindsey and his entire office from a double murder and kidnapping case after she found discovery violations in at least 23 cases since he took over for Linda Stanley, a former attorney disbarred for discovery violations and other unethical behavior in a high-profile murder case.

The 11th Judicial District serves Fremont, Chaffee, Custer and Park counties.

Swan ordered a special prosecutor to the case, saying she no longer had faith Lindsey could fairly prosecute the trial.

According to Loew, the prosecution is ultimately responsible for making sure that evidence, testimony and other discovery-related information used in a case gets to the defense in a timely manner, as required by Rule 16.

When Rule 16 violations occur, Loew said the court is instructed to pursue the least severe remedy that would still be fair to the defense.

The 23rd Judicial District Attorney’s Office said it is implementing the following discovery reforms:

• Requiring filing detectives to complete mandatory discovery checklists to ensure all materials are identified and transmitted by law enforcement.

• Conducting Initial Case Reviews (ICRs) by paralegals and discovery technicians to confirm receipt of expected discovery items, supported by increased staffing from 2.5 to six full-time employees dedicated to discovery review.

• Issuing three separate formal discovery-demand letters to law enforcement during the life of a case, each emphasizing the importance of complete discovery and the potential consequences of noncompliance.

• Maintaining proactive communication with defense counsel and inviting notification of any missing items to allow immediate correction.

• Providing ongoing discovery-compliance training for law enforcement agencies throughout the jurisdiction.

• Conducting internal training and competency testing for all DA employees on discovery obligations.

• Investing in technology improvements to increase efficiency, improve discovery tracking and identify potential gaps more effectively.

• Establishing a systematic internal review process for discovery violations to assess root causes and implement corrective measures to prevent recurrence.