People v. SPYKSTRA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the People have standing to seek protective orders or to move to quash SDTs served on third parties
• recognizing that federal court decisions are not controlling when interpreting Colorado procedural rules, but noting that federal case law was helpful in interpreting Colorado Crim. P. 15(a) as Colorado’s rule was “patterned after the federal rule”
• explaining that Rule 17 doesn't \create an equivalent to the broad right of civil litigants to discovery of all information that is relevant or may lead to the discovery of relevant information\
• noting that \a district attorney has the general authority to appear and participate in proceedings to which the People of the State are party\ and no superior authority applied to prohibit the district attorney from moving to quash the subpoenas
• outlining the procedure for issuing third party subpoenas to produce evidence
• \Crim. P. 17(c) strikes the balance between a defendant’s right to exculpatory evidence with the competing interests of a witness to protect personal information . . . .\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).