1 ORDER TO SEAL SEARCH WARRANTS, AFFIDAVITS, ORDERS AND CASE FILE FILED: JULY 20 2012 This is an order to seal

all documents from Public Inspection. This order is to remain sealed until further order of the Court.

2 ORDER AND RULINGS REGARDING EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE AND DECORUM Dated July 20, 2012

This has come to the Court pursuant to KUSA-9News petitioners, Associated Press Photos and The Denver Post. They want media coverage of the advisement proceeding. The Court ruled media coverage is permitted to sill, video and audio coverage only. Video and audio footage went to KUSA-9News. Still photography went to Associated Press Photos. The media is solely responsible to an open and impartial distribution of the footage. The following are restrictions in all areas within the Justice Centre: No electronic devices No interviews No photography, transmitting or recording within the courtrooms and the jury room Ensure a clear passage is made No public or media is to attempt to interview anyone including the defendant No putting up of tents, tables or similar items on the Public Grounds Everyone has to rise and be seated when told Must remain quiet Heightened security measures must be taken Restrictions to parking If you violate anything you will be held in Contempt of Court.

3 ORDER RE: MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2) Dated 23rd July 2012

This Motion is brought to the Court via the Defence. Nature of the case demonstrates the need for Court intervention to guide the conduct of counsel to avoid lowering the level of advocacy in this case.

Lawyers do fight with each other and sometimes those arguments become acrimonious. This diverts time, energy and resources. If the lawyers were fighting in public the media would focus on the fighting and not on the case.

So basically no lawyer, law firm or legal representative is allowed to talk to the media/public. No law enforcement officers are allowed to speak to the media/public. The police are also not allowed to act in a manner that creates deliberate exposure of the defendant i.e photographs or video, or organise an interview with the media and the defendant. Court personnel arent to disclose to unauthorised persons any information.

4 ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE OF JULY 30, 2012 HEARING (D-7) Dated 24th July 2012 This Motion is brought to the Court via KUSA-9News, The Denver Posts and Colorado Public Radio (Petitioners). The Petitioners are seeking audio, video and photography. The Court received another Objection to Expanded Media Coverage and Request for Hearing (D-7) filed for July 23, 2012 by the Defendant. No word from the People at this stage. The Court previously denied the Defendants Objection to Expanded Media Coverage and Request for Hearing (D-4) file on July 20, 2012. The Court denied that objection. After considering the Defendants Objection, the Court denied the Petitioners Request.

5 STANDING DECORUM ORDER (C-3) Dated 25th July 2012

This document basically sets out what you can and cannot do in the Justice Centre: Restrictions within the Justice Centre All electronic devices are banned No interviews shall be conducted within the Courthouse No photography, transmitting or recording within the Applicable Areas Media and public can take pictures of people as they come and go from the Courthouse, except for Jurors. Always leave a clear passage Members of the public or media are allow to conduct interviews of any party within the Courthouse Do not put up tents, tables etc.

Restrictions to all Applicable Areas All electronic devices are banned No interviews shall be conducted The front row on each side of the Operating Courtroom is to remain vacant Public will be admitted to the designated media portion of the courtroom if there is room Need to sit and rise when told Be quiet Heightened security measures will be taken Restrictions to parking If you violate anything you will be held in Contempt of Court.

Additional provisions will be made regarding photos or video of victims, defendant, counsel, families, witnesses and jurors as it becomes necessary.

6 AMENDED ORDER RE MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D10) DATED 25 JULY 2012 This amended order is brought to the Court by the Defendant. The motion is granted by the Court on 25th July 2012. This order is to commence immediately.

7 PEOPLES MOTION NO. 1 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO RECORDS UNDATED This is brought to the Court by the People. The People state: The Defendant has been arrested for numerous counts of first-degree murder, attempted murder and other offenses relating to events occurring in the morning of July 20 2012. The case has a lot of media interest. The Defendant attended University of Colorado. As of July 12, 2012 the Defendant was in the process of voluntarily withdrawing from the university. On July 21, 2012 a representative of the University contact the DA. The representative advised that members of the media had started to inquire the University regarding the case and requesting release of the Defendants records, subject to Colorado Open Records Act. The People believe that the media wants access to electronic documents such as e-mail and similar. The People have not had access to these records but they believe that disclosing these documents to the media would not be good. So the People asks the Court to prohibit the University from releasing these documents. Or alternatively the documents be submitted to the court for in camera review. A representative from the University has advised the DAs office that they do not object to this.

8 ORDER RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS BY UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO PURSUANT TO COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT PEOPLES MOTION NO. 1 (P-2)

DATED 23 JULY 2012

The Court orders the University is not allowed to disclose any information about the Defendant pursuant to CORA. If you want information from the University, then subpoena them.

9 MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION OF ALL DISCOVERY PERTAINING TO IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED MATERIAL D-(011) DATED 26 JULY 2012 James Holmes through is counsel moves the Court to order the government to show all discovery regarding the package sent my Mr Holmes to Dr Lynne Fenton. Mr Holmes wants a hearing in this regard for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions for misconduct, Mr Holmes wants all discovery produced, including a list of all the people involved in the seizure and names of law enforcement agents, including federal agents who tested this package for explosives, involved in the chain of custody of the package, all information regarding the seizure, names of the people responsible for the breach, all notes and reports regarding the package, all information as to how the media knew about it.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Point 1, line 5 Mr Holmes was a psychiatric patient of Dr. Fenton, and is communications with her are protected by C.R.S. 13-90-107(1) (d) & (g).

10 PEOPLES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION D-11 FILED JULY 27, 2012 The People object to the Motion. They will provide the discovery on their possession. They denied that they were responsible for the leak to the media. The People say that they only issued one warrant, not two warrants as per NBCNEWS.coms story. The also advise that the packaged was never opened. They say the media made the whole story up as they believe no one in their court leaked any information whatsoever. The People say that if there were video cameras in the mailroom they will provide such evidence if it comes to hand. People say that the whole story is inaccurate and as such do not know how to respond to the Motion D-11

11 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION OF ALL DISCOVERY PERTAINING TO IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED MATERIAL (D-11) DATED JULY 27, 2012 The Court grants the hearing.

12 MEDIAS MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (WITH REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING)

DATED JULY 27, 2012 This Motion is brought before the Court by numerous media outlets. They wish the files in this case be unsealed.

13 ORDER RE: MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (C4)

DATED JULY 27, 2012 The Court orders the Movants(media) request to set a hearing to address matters on July 30 2012.

14 AMENDED ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2A)

DATED 13 AUGUST 2012

The Court notes there are certain subjects more likely to have prejudicial effect on a proceeding. They include character, credibility, reputation or criminal record or a party or suspect, performance of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or a test, opinion as to guilt or innocence and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

15 ORDER RE MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET)(SUPPRESSION ORDER)(C-4C) DATED AUGUST 13 2012 Court finds that the University of Colorado is not to talk. The Register of Actions is to be opened. Affidavits, subpoenas, arrest warrants etc are to be suppressed. The Court will release an addition 34 documents. The Court orders that the file remains suppressed and the package is to be held under seal and held with the Clerk of the Court.

16 MOTION FOR ACCESS TO AND PRESERVATION OF CRIME SCENE (001) (D-1) FILE 7.20.2012 James Holmes wants his counsel granted access to the crime scene. He states his family has requested counsel represent him. Counsel has not been able to meet with Mr Holmes.

17 ORDER RE MOTION FOR ACCESS TO AND PRESERVATION OF CRIME SCENE (001) (D-1) FILED 7.23.2012 At the advisement hearing (23/7) the Defendant included Mr Holmes place of residence as well as the theatre and surrounding areas. AS the People and Defense came to an agreement at that hearing whereas the People will give the Defense 24 hours notice to have reasonable access to both crime scenes, the Court finds the Defendants Motion moot.

18 MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRAIL PUBLICITY (002) FILED 7.20.2012 James Holmes moves the Court to order limiting information given out by attorneys, their agents, employees and all enforcement agencies and investigators, employees, court personnel regarding the case.

19 ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRAIL PUBLICITY (002) FILED 7.23.2012 The Court orders that no lawyers, law enforcement agencies or court personnel not to disclose any information or talk about this matter.

20 MOTION TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE EVIDENCE (003) (D3) FILED 7.20.2012 The Defense asks for the following: All recordings produced or seized All police notes. Do not destroy these notes All scientific reports etc All photos All correspondence All biological samples and physical evidence All records

21 OBJECTION TO EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING (004) FILED 7.20.2012 The Defense objects to media coverage for the July 23, 2012 advisement hearing. Mr Holmes also wants a court order requiring 30 days notice in advance of any hearing for such request to be made.

22 NOTICE OF INVOCATION OF ALL STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND REVOCATION OF ANY AND ALL PREVIOUSLY GIVEN WAIVERS AND PRIVILEGES (005 (D5) FILED 7.23.2012 James Holmes invokes privileges including medical and psychiatric, school, employment etc, requests the Court order no member of the DA, law enforcement etc obtain confidential information, he does not authorise anyone to waive his rights on his behalf, exercises his right to silence, does not want to be interviewed or contacted unless his attorney is present, the DA is not allowed to contact him with his counsels approval, He also revokes all previously stated or signed waivers of confidentiality. Does not consent to releasing of his records.

23 MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EVIDENCE (006) (D-6) FILED 23 JULY 2012 James Holmes wants a confidential expert during scientific testing, not to perform any further testing until this matter is resolved.

24 INTERIM ORDER TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EVIDENCE (006) (D-6) FILED 23 JULY 2012

The People are required to respond within 20 days.

25 PEOPLES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION D-6: MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EVIDENCE

FILED AUGUST 8 2012

In response the People is asking the Court to deny the request. They basically say that testing the evidence is in its own way destructive in nature.

26 OBJECTION TO EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING (D-007) FILED 23 JULY 2012

James Holmes objects to requests by media for expanded media coverage for July 30 2012 pre-trial hearing as it will jeopardise Mr Holmes constitutional rights to due process.

27 REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE KUSA-9NEWS FILED 23 JULY 2012 This is a standard form filled out by KUSA-9News for expanded media coverage for audio and video.

28 REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE THE DENVER POST FILED 23 JULY 2012 This is a standard form filled out by The Denver Post for expanded media coverage for still photography.

29 REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE COLORADO PUBLIC RADIO FILED 23 JULY 2012 This is a standard form filled out by Colorado Public Radio for expanded media coverage for audio.

30 MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-010) FILED JULY 25 2010 James Holmes moves the Court to issue an Order pursuant to his constitutional rights regarding pretrial publicity. It seems the government violated that order by disseminating information to the media regarding his communications with xxxxxxxxxx (this means it was blackened out). Unretracted document released October 26, 2012 Point 2, last line Mr Holmes and his psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton

31 ORDER RE MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-10) DATED 25 JULY 2012 Defendants motion is granted.

32 MOTION TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SIT AT COUNSEL TABLE D-(012) DATED 25 JULY 2012 James Holmes moves the Court to allow him to sit at counsel table. Keeping him in the jury box gives the impression that Mr Holmes express threats or exhibits dangerous behaviour. If people in the court desire to harm Mr Holmes, then the Court needs to address the conduct of those particular people, not Mr Holmes.

33 ORDER RE MOTION TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SIT AT COUNSEL TABLE D-(012) DATED 27 JULY 2012 This motion is granted.

34 MOTION TO SEAL SEARCH WARRANTS, AFFIDAVITS, ORDERS AND CASE FILE DATED 20 JULY 2012 The People state that release of records, affidavit and return of service inventory sheets could disclose information resulting in destruction, disposal or secreting evidence and tampering with identified and unidentified witnesses, jeopardizing the investigation. Therefore they want these documents to be sealed.

35 SUPPLEMENT TO ORDER TO SEAL SEARCH WARRANTS, AFFIDAVITS, ORDERS AND CASE FILE (P1) DATED 31 JULY 2012 The Court orders the DA to give a copy of the Courts current Order (attached) to judicial officer and court staff with future search warrants and affidavits so they are aware of the order.

36 PEOPLES MOTION (P-7) MOTION TO CLARIFY COURT ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMITED PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2) FILED 27 JULY 2012 The people are confused with the Courts July 23, 2012 Order Re Motion to Limit Pre-Trial Publicity (D-2). They list discrepancies with various references to Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

37 RESPONSE TO PEOPLES MOTION (P-7) MOTION TO CLARIFY COURT ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMITED PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2) FILED 30 JULY 2012 The Defense responds to the Peoples response. The majority of these requisitions as such is in relation to inaccurate reports filed by the media reaching the jury pool in the case. If you really want to know the ins and outs of the motion and responses you will need to read the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.6-3.8.

38 PEOPLES MOTION (P-8) MOTION FOR HEARING PRIOR TO UNSEALING OF COMPLAINT, NAMES OF VICTIMS, ADDRESSES, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS, ITEMS, OR PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE FILED JULY 27, 2012 The People ask that before the court unseals any portion of the case that a hearing be conducted to enable all parties to be heard. This includes complaint, names and addresses of victims and witnesses.

39 REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE KUSA-9NEWS FILED 20 JULY 2012 This is a standard form regarding request for expanded media coverage by KUSA-9News for audio and video.

40 REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE THE DENVER POST FILED 20 JULY 2012 This is a standard form regarding request for expanded media coverage by The Denver Post for photos.

41 REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOS FILED 20 JULY 2012 This is a standard form regarding request for expanded media coverage by The Denver Post for photos.

42 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (C2) FILED 23 JULY 2012 This document spells out the filing, identification and labelling protocol for all pleadings in this case. People = P-1 (1 being the number of motions filed) Defendant = D-1 Court = C-1

43 PEOPLE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (P-9) FILED 6 AUGUST 2012 The People respond to the media and they advise that they did not object to the unsealing of the Complaint and Information. They do not want the witness details released. The Defense does not want any portion of the case unsealed.

As a result the People agree with the Defense and don't want any of the case unsealed.

The People realised that the case will be unsealed at some point.

If the Court wants to unseal anything then they ask they just unseal the Register of Actions and most motions and orders except People's 5 "Preliminary Bench Brief Relating to Defendant's Allegations that Certain Materials are Protected by Privilege".

44 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (P-9) FILED 9 AUGUST 2012 Mr Holmes objects to the unsealing of any additional documents presently contained in the case file. He also objects to the online posting of pleadings filed in the "Cases of Interest" section of the state judicial branch website.

There are many reasons why he is objecting to unsealing of this case and his lawyers refer to many points of law. If you need to know the full details of it, have a look at the motion. If you need help please let me know and I will try to help.

45 MEDIA PETITIONERS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE

FILED 8 AUGUST 2012

Basically the media wants the file unsealed so they have a story to report, as we know. They again make many points of law and if you are really interested please take the time to read the motion.

One point I would like to make regarding this documents. The media say that "Holmes has also be a ******** (blackened out) at the University of Colorado". Unredacted Version released October 26, 2012 Page 5: second dot point: been a psychiatric patient of Dr. Lynn Fenton at

46 (ORIGINAL AND CORRECTED) MOTION BY MEDIA PETITIONERS FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURTS ORDERS REGARDING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY. DATED 3 AUGUST AND 6 AUGUST 2012 I could not find the exact correction This Motion is made pursuant to: Order re Motion to Limit Pre-Trial Publicity, Amended Order re Motion for Compliance with Order Limiting Pre-Trial Publicity, the imposition of potential sanction of contempt of court for any violation of the Rules, the prohibition on extra-judicial statements only apply to the DAs office and criminal Law Enforcement Agencies involved in this case. Amended order now includes Aurora Police Department, Arapahoe County Sheriffs Dept, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, FBI and ATF. Other non-criminal law enforcement agencies are citing the Courts Orders not to comment on the case. In seeking out information on actions by non-law government, that body is now citing the Court Order and not speaking to the media i.e Aurora History Museum refuses to issue a statement regarding plans of a Memorial Park across the street from the Century 21 (16?) Movie Theatre. The media has asked for information regarding how many rural metro ambulances responded to the shooting, where they went, inspection of the reports held by the Aurora Fire Department for the movie theatre dating back weeks and months before July 20, seeking records showing when off-duty police officers have worked at the movie theatre in the two months prior to July 20. The media say these records should be made available as they are not within the ambit of the Courts Orders as none of these agencies will be participating in the prosecution of the defendant.

47 PEOPLES MOTION TO CONTINUE (P-11) FILED AUGUST 15, 2012

The People wish to continue hearing dated August 16, 2012. They do not have all discovery as yet. They have received 2,500 pages of discovery, 52 DVDs and CDs but they are awaiting more information. Information requested in Subpoena Duces Tecum to the University is necessary for privilege. The Defendants attorney has advised they do not object to the Motion to Continue. They both request the Court rule on the Motion today so they can call off the witnesses scheduled for that date.

48 ORDER RE PEOPLES MOTION TO CONTINUE (P-11) DATED AUGUST 15, 2012

The Court has agreed to let the hearing for August 16 be moved to August 23, 2012.

49 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OR EVIDENCE DATED AUGUST 15, 2012 The Defense wants experts to be present for scientific testing and the Court finds that it has no statutory authority to order the People to allow Defendant a confidential expert be present during the Peoples scientific testing. The People must comply with the disclosure requirements regarding destructive or consumptive testing. The People are to give the Defendant 48 hours notice before conducting testing.

While the Defendant has the right at trial to confront any state experts or examiners involved in the testing, the Defendant does not have the right to a confidential expert present..

50 PEOPLES MOTION 12 REQUEST TO RELEASE NAMES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF VICTIMS TO THE COLORADO ORGANIZATION FOR VICTIMS ASSISTANCE.

FILED AUGUST 16, 2012

COVA wants the names and contact information of the victims to enable them to distribute funds as soon as possible.

51 ORDER REGARDING PEOPLES MOTION 12 REQUEST TO RELEASE NAMES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF VICTIMS TO THE COLORADO ORGANIZATION FOR VICTIMS ASSISTANCE.

DATED AUGUST 16, 2012

As this motion is unopposed, the Court grants the Motion, with amendments. The DA can give COVA the victims details on once the victims have given their prior consent. COVA must keep this information confidential

52 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR MR HOLMES EDUCATIONAL RECORDS D-(014) FILED AUGUST 8, 2012 James Holmes requests that the subpoena on his educational records should be quashed as it is unreasonable and oppressive, as it seeks confidential and/or privileged materials.

Unredacted documents released October 26, 2012

Point 1, line 8 treating psychiatrist contains privileged communications. Page 3, point 6, lines 6 and 7 Clark v. District Court, 668 P.2d 3 (Colo. 1983) Page 3, point 7, lines 1 and 2 contained in the package mailed to his treating psychiatrist are privileged is Page 3, point 7, lines 4 and 5 contain medical, psychological or therapy records. See Clark, supra; C.R.S 13-90-107(g), (g) . Page 3, point 9, lines 2 and 3 Medical, mental health, sociological, and scholastic achievement data on individual persons. Page 3, point 9, line 4 protected by C.R.S. 24-72-204(3)(a)(I); see also 22-2-111. Page 3, point 12, sub-paragraph (b), lines 7 and 8 achievement or medical, psychological, or sociological information

53 PEOPLES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR MR HOLMES EDUCATIONAL RECORDS D-(014) FILED AUGUST 14, 2012 The People argue that the Defendants educational records are relevant to the investigation of these crimes, his planning and motive and asks the Court to deny the Defendants motion. Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Point 11, line 1 seeking medical and psychiatric records but the Point 11, line 3 for any privilege medical or psychiatric.

54 ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (C-7) DATED AUGUST 16, 2012 The Court orders no in camera review shall be conducted until after Defendant files a written response and the parties present oral argument. This needs to be filed by Monday August 20 2012 and oral argument to be held on August 23, 2012. Meanwhile the University documents are sealed.

55 PEOPLES MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 21, 2012

The DA learned that at least one news agency request the release of records for the autopsy reports and photographs of the deceased and they would like the Court to rule on this matter.

56 SUPPLEMENT TO PEOPLES MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 22, 2012

The news agency requesting the release of the records have now withdrawn their request.

57 DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PROSECUTORS MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 22, 2012

James Holmes replies based on the Peoples Supplement, the matter now appears moot.

58 ORDER RE PEOPLES MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 22, 2012 In the Peoples Motion they state that at least one media outlet has requested the release of records regarding autopsy reports and photographs of the deceased. The court grants a hearing on the matter scheduled for August 23, 2012.

59 MOTION TO INTERVENE BY XXXXXX TO SUBMIT NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE & RIGHT FOR TO BE HEARD UNDER CRIMES VICTIM ACT FILED 27 AUGUST 2012 This is a very colourful story. I dont know what else to say about this. Read it yourself if you are interested.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 The unredacted version shows that Motion to Intervene was lodged by a Carli Richards.

60 ORDER RE: MOTION TO INTERVENE BY XXXXXX TO SUBMIT NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE & RIGHT FOR TO BE HEARD UNDER CRIMES VICTIM ACT FILED SEPTEMBER 6 2012 The Court finds this colourful story illegitimate and has concerns for the authors mental health.

61

PEOPLES MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL COUNTS 143-152 (P-20) DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 The People have added 10 more counts of attempted murder in the first degree; 5 x attempt to commit murder in the first degree charges and 5 x attempt to commit murder in the first degree with extreme indifference. All names have been redacted.

62 PEOPLES MOTION TO AMEND COUNTS 28, 29, 37, 40, 41, 49, 67, 67, 60, 86, 87, 95, 98, 99, 107, 118, 125 AND 142 DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 The People have amended all these counts. Most have been redacted except for:

Count 40: Count 41: Count 98: Count 99: Count 142:

DELETE victim name JAY JENKENS and replace with victim name XXXXX DELETE victim name BONNIE KATE and replace with victim name XXXXX DELETE victim name JAY JENKENS and replace with victim name XXXXX DELETE victim name BONNIE KATE and replace with victim name XXXXX as charged in counts 1 through 140 and counts 143 through 152

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Count 28 attempted to cause the death of Toni Billapando; Count 29 attempted to cause the death of Christina Blache; Count 37 attempted to cause the death of Zackary Golditch; Count 40 DELETE victim name JAY JENKINS and replace with victim name Kirsten Davis Count 41 - DELETE victim name BONNIE KATE and replace with victim name Katie Medley Count 49 - attempted to cause the death of Stefan Moton; Count 60 - attempted to cause the death of Farrah Soudani; Count 67 - attempted to cause the death of Alleen Young; Count 86 - attempted to cause the death of Toni Billapando; Count 87 attempted to cause the death of Christina Blache; Count 95 attempted to cause the death of Zackary Golditch; Count 98 DELETE victim name JAY JENKINS and replace with victim name Kirsten Davis Count 99 - DELETE victim name BONNIE KATE and replace with victim name Katie Medley Count 107 - attempted to cause the death of Stefan Moton; Count 118 - attempted to cause the death of Farrah Soudani; Count 125 - attempted to cause the death of Alleen Young; Count 142 as charged in counts 1 through 140 and counts 143 through 152

63 COURT ORDER GRANTING PEOPLES MOTION P-20, MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL COUNTS 143152 DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 The Court grants the Peoples Motion.

64 ORDER TO AMEND 28, 29, 37, 40, 41, 49, 67, 67, 60, 86, 87, 95, 98, 99, 107, 118, 125 AND 142 OF THE FELONY COMPLAINT/INFORMATION (P-21) DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 The Court grants the Peoples Motion.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Count 28 attempted to cause the death of Toni Billapando; Count 29 attempted to cause the death of Christina Blache; Count 37 attempted to cause the death of Zackary Golditch; Count 40 DELETE victim name JAY JENKINS and replace with victim name Kirsten Davis Count 41 - DELETE victim name BONNIE KATE and replace with victim name Katie Medley Count 49 - attempted to cause the death of Stefan Moton; Count 60 - attempted to cause the death of Farrah Soudani; Count 67 - attempted to cause the death of Alleen Young; Count 86 - attempted to cause the death of Toni Billapando; Count 87 attempted to cause the death of Christina Blache; Count 95 attempted to cause the death of Zackary Golditch; Count 98 DELETE victim name JAY JENKINS and replace with victim name Kirsten Davis Count 99 - DELETE victim name BONNIE KATE and replace with victim name Katie Medley Count 107 - attempted to cause the death of Stefan Moton; Count 118 - attempted to cause the death of Farrah Soudani; Count 125 - attempted to cause the death of Alleen Young; Count 142 as charged in counts 1 through 140 and counts 143 through 152

65 ORDER UNSUPPRESSING COURT FILE DATED 21ST SEPTEMBER 2012 The Court has now found it appropriate to Grant the Medias Petitioners request to unsuppress the file with the following exceptions: Anything that has been filed under seal shall remain so; including evidence; Peoples Response to Defendants D-16 Motion for Sanctions Filed Under Seal, filed September 13, 2012; Defendants Reply to Peoples Response to Defendants Motion for Sanctions Resulting from Prosecutions Reckless Disregard for the Truth filed September 17, 2012; Peoples Notice of Endorsement (P-15) filed August 20, 2012; Peoples Response to D-16 and Defendants Reply to Peoples Response; All warrants, affidavits of probably cause, subpoenas, arrest warrants, search warrants; Curricula vitae, specifically Peoples Pleading P-17 Brief Relating to Correct Statutory Privilege, Doctor-Patient Privilege or Psychologist-Patient Privilege, filed August 24, 2012 and Defendants Response to Peoples Motion for Disclosure of Defense Expert filed September 17, 2012.

The Court also finds that in future any documents which are filed with the Court shall be presumed released to the public and the media. Some documents will be redacted. Documents will be released on 28 September 2012.

66 AMENDED ORDER UNSUPPRESSING COURT FILE (C-12) DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER 2012

The Court has issued the amended order to reflect the C-12 designation in the caption of the Order, which was inadvertently omitted from the original order.

67 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER FILED JULY 20TH, 2012 This is an application to obtain a public defender.

68 MANDATORY PROTECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO 18-1-1001 FILED JULY 23, 2012 This is a protection order specifying that the Defendant must not have any contact with witnesses and victims, shall not possess firearms or alcohol or controlled substances.

69 PRETRIAL RELEASE SERVICES BOND REPORT FILED JULY 23, 2012 This shows there is no bond to be held for James Holmes and no pretrial release recommendations due to the nature of the charge, first degree murder.

70 MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PROTECTIVE ORDER (D-008) FILED JULY 25, 2012 James Holmes seeks immediate protective order and requests that the police and prosecutors refrain from opening or viewing the material in the package sent to the University which was seized via search warrant dated July 23, 2012. James wants to package to be sealed and either given to the Court or to his lawyers. It is stated that his lawyers investigators hand-delivered a letter to the University on the morning of July 25th advising the package was privileged and confidential and the material be given to his lawyers. Universitys counsel stated that law enforcement had seized the package on the evening of July 23rd. James counsel e-mailed the prosecution after finding out the package had been seized by police and for the police not to open the package.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 The main things that were redacted in the first place are references to Dr Lynne Fenton and references to patient privileges.

71 RESPONSE TO MOTION D-008 AND COURT ORDER GRANTING D-008 FILED JULY 25TH 2012 This is regarding a search warrant for the contents of a package addressed to someone at the University. The package was located at the mailroom. Prior to the application of the search warrant, the package was examined for explosive and contaminants. As the Defense has indicated they believe they have the right to take possession of the package, the prosecution say they have taken the precaution of specifying in the warrant that the package be sealed in a container and not to be read. The Prosecutors advise that personnel from agencies other than the police has analysed the package and may have seen what was inside the package. The DA say they were not aware of what was inside the package. The DA have contact the police regarding the leaks to the media about the package and that it needs to be full investigated.

Partially Unredacted document released October 26, 2012

Page 2, point 3, last sentence of the notebook needs Page 2, point 4, first sentence of the notebook will be Page 2, point 4, second sentence of the notebook.

72 ORDER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION D-008 FIELD JULY 25TH, 2012 The Court orders the Defendant to respond to Peoples Request in Paragraph 4 of their Response asap, but no later than Friday July 27th 2012 5pm.

73 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED JULY 25TH 2012 Defendants motion is Granted.

74 REPLY TO ORDER RE: RESPONSE TO MOTION D-008 FILED JULY 26, 2012 James Holmes agrees that the materials (package) in question should be submitted to the court and that he objects to any in camera review until privilege has been litigated.

75 MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL (D-009) FILED JULY 25, 2012 James Holmes requests any copies made of the package be destroyed and the package be turned over to the Court. James Holmes communications with XXXXXX are protected. After the government did not respond to James Holmes request for privilege, James Holmes tried to file this Motion yesterday but the clerks office had closed its windows early. James Holmes then emailed a copy of the motion to the government at 6.02pm and filed the original Motion the next day at 8.30am. The Court granted protective order at 9.30am that same day. 30-45 minutes later Fox News first published an online article disclosing the package. Mr Holmes therefore requires the Court to issue an Order for the immediate seal of the material an destroy any copies made.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Paragraph 1, line 4 addressed to Dr. Lynne Fenton that Point 1, line 3 Mr Holmes to Dr Fenton Point 1, line 4 was a psychiatric patient of Dr Fenton Point 1, line 5 13-90-107(1)(g),(d)

76 PEOPLES MOTION 3 REQUEST FOR COURT TO ORDER SPECIFIC PROCEDURES REGARDING CUSTODY OF MATERIALS TO BE TURNED OVER TO COURT IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS D-9 FILED JULY 26, 2012 The People have the courts order to transfer the package to Tammy Herrivel (clerk of the court). She is to keep the items secured where only she has access and she is also required to be present at all times in case she is called as a witness.

77 ORDER RE: PEOPLES MOTION P-3 REQUEST FOR COURT TO ORDER SPECIFIC PROCEDURES REGARDING CUSTODY OF MATERIALS TO BE TURNED OVER TO COURT IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS D-9 DATED JULY 26, 2012 The police will transfer the items specified in Order No. D-9 to Tammi Herivel.

78 PEOPLES PLEADING P-4 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS DATED JULY 26TH 2012 The People have transferred the materials to Tammy Herrivel. No copies were made of the notebook and therefore none are to be destroyed.

79 PEOPLES PLEADING P-5 PRELIMINARY BENCH BRIEF RELATING TO DEFENDANTS ALLEGATIONS THAT CERTAIN MATERIALS ARE PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE DATED JULY 27, 2012 The People believe there was no physician-patient relationship at the time the package was sent. The Peoples factual statements are based on an understanding. At one point the Defendant had a relationship with XXXXXXXXX. It was terminated on or prior to June 12th 2012. It was terminated after threats were made to XXXXXXX of the University and was reported to the University Police. Hence the University terminated the Defendants access to campus. Late July 2012, one month after termination the Defendant placed a parcel in US mail addressed to the University. July 23rd 2012 the Defendants attorney contacted the University asking to collect a package the Defendant had sent to the University. Mailroom located the package with Defendants return address. The University contacted CU campus police who then contacted Adams County Bomb squad. The bomb squad examined the package via x-ray machine and tested it for contaminants. Suited up in special suit they opened the package. They found a notebook with a post-it note. When they picked up the notebook a number of XXXXXXX. The continued to check the notebook to clear it for XXXXXXX. University Police Chief Abraham removed the XXXXX from the XXXXXXX and held it by the XXXXXXX. Aurora Police Detective fanned the XXXXXXXX exposing about XXXXXXX. The CU Police Chief reported seeing XXXXXX. It was then set down on a table , closed until the Aurora Police Department obtained a search warrant. All items have now been delivered pursuant to Court Order. The Defendant is saying there was a relationship between himself and XXXXXXX. The People disagree. Communication with a former XXXXXX who is no longer diagnosing or treating are not privileged.

80 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO CRIM P 16(1)(d)(2) AND (III)(d) (P-6) Dated July 27, 2012 People dont believe the defendant knows where the victims or the families of the deceased victims in the current case live. They are not asking to prevent disclosure of this information to the defense, just the defendant.

81 INFORMATION SLIP FILED JULY 27, 2012 This is a general information form for case filing. Interesting notes: Mr Holmescar was 2000 Hyundai Tiburon (119ROC) List of Next of Kin: unknown

82 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVILEGED MATERIAL (D-009) FILED JULY 25, 2012 The Court grants the motion.

83 ORDER CLARIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING (C-5) DATED AUGUST 3, 2012 People need to respond by Monday August 6th to Medias Motion to Unseal. Defense has agreed to respond by Thursday August 9th by no later than 8.30am. The Court also requests that both parties address certain issues and file briefs with Court no later than Tuesday August 14 at 12pm. They need to address questions regarding waiving or terminating XXXXXXXXX.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Point 1, first line can a psychologist-patient privilege be. Point 2, first line Is the psychologist-patient privilege automatically. Point 2, second line threatens the psychologist or others.

84 NOTICE REGARDING DISCOVERY PROVIDED BY PROSECUTION (D-013) DATED AUGUST 6, 2012 The prosecution have advised they will provide the defense with two tape recordings regarding the seizure of the package at the mailroom. The defense has received those tapes and have view them. They do not believe it contains privilege information.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Point 1, third line to his psychiatrist

85 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE FILED AUGUST 6, 2012 The whole document is blackened out.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 This is a subpoena addressed to the Custodian of Records c/- Patrick ORourke, University Counsel University of Colorado 1800 Grant Street, Suite 800 DENVER, CO 80203

The University is ordered to appear at court on August 16, 2012 at 1.30pm and to bring: All recordings relating to James including: o Complete student application o All class schedules o Transcripts of grades o Departmental files in the Neuroscience Department o Building access information o Oral board examination documents o Testing materials o All documents from the Behavioural Evaluation and Threat Assessment team o Campus police records

86 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST FORM FILED AUGUST 8, 2012 This is a form filled out by a party requesting copies of transcripts of court proceedings.

87 ORDER RE: MEDIA PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR TIMELY RELEASE OF COURT FILINGS TO PROVIDE FOR MEANINGFUL RIGHT TO OBSERVE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (C-9) FILED AUGUST 13, 2012 The Court has denied the request.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Page 2, last paragraph, fourth line psychiatrist-patient privilege

88 RESPONSE TO COURTS REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING (C-5) FILED AUGUST 14, 2012 The Defence responds to the Courts request for further briefing.

89 ORDER RE: PROPOSED CMO (C-8) FILED AUGUST 21ST, 2012 Court wants to issue a Supplemental Case Management Order and Orders the parties to attach proposed order and respond. Counsel shall file an unredacted original and one redacted copy of all peadings/motions only with the Clerk of the Court. Unredacted documents to be stamped District and redacted documents to be stamped redacted. Counsel shall continue to caption pleadings/motions with format ordered previously. The Clerk of the Court is designated as custodian of record of the case. The files shall remain in the custody of the Clerk of the Court at all times. District file of pleadings/motions available only to counsel of record and their investigators, assistants under supervision. Redacted files are for the public. Subpoena duces tecum (SDT) are to be numbered just as motions are, must be served on third parties fourteen days prior to the date of return. Motions to quash must be filed seven days before return.

90 RESPONSE TO ORDER RE: PROPOSED CMO (C-8) FILED AUGUST 21ST, 2012 The defense objects to procedure in paragraph 1 requiring counsel to file original and one redacted copy as they object to the unsealing of the file period. They also object to paragraph 8 of in camera review. The defense objects to requirements for issuing subpoenas in paragraphs 11-14 as the defense cannot predict the need for issuing a subpoena and therefore it may not be able to comply with the limits proposed by the Court.

91 PEOPLES RESPONSE TO ORDER RE: PROPOSED CMO (C-8) FILED SEPTEMBER 5 2012 The People have no objection to procedures and requirements proposed by the Court.

92 MOTION REQUESTING RESOLUTION OF PREMILINARY LEGAL ISSUES PRIOR TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PRIVILEGE (D-015) FILED AUGUST 23, 2012 Note: this document is heavily redacted and very hard to follow. This is the best I could do under the circumstances. The Court has scheduled a hearing for August 30,2012 to litigate the issue of the package and whether it is protected.. This document discusses two issues: 1. Which privilege applies to the relationship between Mr Holmes and XXXXX? The defense refers to C.R.S. 13-90-107(1)(g), which protects any communication made by the client or the clinicians advice given in the course of professional employment. The government disagrees. Mr Holmes agrees with the Court regarding communications between XXXXX and Mr Holmes. The defense refers to the US Supreme court recognising Treatment.depends upon an atmosphere of confidence and trust in which the XXXX willing to make a frank and complete disclosure of facts, emotions, memories and fears. 2. Does C.R.S 13-21-117 create an exception to the privileges articulated in C.R.S 13-90-107, or does it merely exempt XXXXXX from civil liberty under certain circumstances? The prosecution say that XXXX is exempt from civil liability. Mr Holmes disagrees XXXXX does not exempt from privilege any statements made by a client to XXXXX threatening or otherwise. The statue provides XXXXX immunity from civil liability for breaking the privilege under certain circumstances.

Unredacted version released October 26, 2012

The Defense wants clarification on the two issues requested by the Court resolved before August 30, 2012 hearing:

1.

Which privilege applies to the relationship between Mr Holmes and Dr Fenton? James says that psychologist-patient privilege should be applicable to his relationship with Dr Fenton because although she is a psychiatrist, she is able to conduct therapy with mental health patients in the same way as a psychologist does.

93 2. Does C.R.S 13-21-117 create an exception to the privileges articulated in C.R.S. 13-90-107, or does it merely exempt clinicians from civil liberty under certain circumstances? The prosecution says that C.R.S 13-21-117 provides exemption from civil liability for clinicians who fail to predict a mental healths patients violent behaviour except where the patient has communicated to the mental health provider a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons and that in turn exempts any future violence from the cloak of invisibility. They also say that it is exempt from privilege if the violence is directed in relation to the treatment of the patient or those threats not directed at a specific person or persons. James Holmes disagrees. C.R.S 12-21-117 only provides exemption to privilege for clinicians from civil liberty cases.

94

SUPPLEMENT TO (D-15) FILED AUGUST 24, 2012 This document is heavily redacted and extremely hard to follow. This is, however, an extension of the previous D-15 regarding the physician-patient privilege. Partially Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 This supplement talks about James communications with Dr Fenton are no different between other medical health clinicians and their patients. Just because Dr Fenton is a psychiatrist and not a psychologist does not mean that James should be deprived of rights to Equal Protection under the state and federal constitutions. Attached to this supplement is Jamess client summary with Dr Fenton. It is all blackened out except for his name and address, the date he saw her (June 11, 2012 at 3:58:21pm) It is also called a Triage Progress Note The headings throughout the document are:
PATIENT IDENTIFICATION AND CHIEF COMPLAINT SUBJECTIVE DIAGNOSIS AND SYMPTOMS PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY SOCIAL HISTORY STRESSORS/STRENGTH FAMILY HISTORY MENTAL STATUS EXAM PROBLEMS PLAN TREATMENT PLAN (nothing was typed here) ASSESSMENT AXI I--V SCALES (nothing was typed here) DANGEROUSNESS SERVICE ATTENDING ADDENDUM (nothing was typed here)

95 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RESULTING FROM PROSECUTIONS RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH (D-016) FILED AUGUST 27, 2012 James Holmes asks the court to impose sanctions on the DAs office for publically making false assertions. Specifically regarding asserting Mr Holmes was banned from the CU campus and his key-card access was revoked. CU publically stated that neither of these were true. These statements are false and it appears the prosecution has fabricated information in an effort to obtain Mr Holmes education records. Attached to this Motion are excerpts of articles published by the Denver Post. Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Paragraph 1, line 4 sent to his treating psychiatrist, Dr Lynne Fenton Point 1, first line Mr Holmes to Dr Point 1, second line Lynne Fenton on Point 2, second line sent to Dr. Fenton

96 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RESULTING FROM PRESECUTIONS RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH (D016)

FILED AUGUST 28, 2012 The Court has granted a hearing to discuss this matter for August 30, 2012.

97 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RESULTING FROM PRESECUTIONS RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH (D016)

FILED SEPTEMBER 21, 2012

The prosecution say that they cannot determine whether or not the CU spokespersons information is correct or the accuracy of any information reported by the media. They argue that the two acts of being denied access and voluntarily withdrawing could have happened simultaneously.

The Court authorises the release of some of the Universitys documents to the Prosecution. The court see no evidence of fabrication on the prosecutors behalf.

Therefore, the motion is denied.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Page 2, second paragraph reported in the media. Furthermore in their response, the People have attached discovery from the Aurora Police Department that shows that Defendants key-card access was deactivated on June 12, 2012, which was before the official withdrawal date June 13, 2012, noted on the copy of the Official Withdrawal Form also attached. Page 2, second paragraph .having his ID access cut off when the reports indicate it was deactivated before his actual withdrawal date cannot be found to be a deliberate mischaracterization by the People

98 MEDIAS PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR TIMELY RELEASE OF COURT FILINGS TO PROVIDE FOR MEANINGFUL RIGHT TO OBSERVE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FILED AUGUST 27, 2012

The Media argue that in the last 4 hearings the parties have made oral statements referring to previously filed motions which nobody has actually seen. The Register of Actions is not released until Friday afternoon, oral arguments discuss motions which have not even been identified on public record. As a result it is impossible for the media or the public to obtain any meaningful understanding of what is going on in the case. Therefore the media respectfully requests that the file be opened to the public.

99 MEDIA PETITIONERS REQUEST TO BE HEARD IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER, PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF ANY ORDER CLOSING THE COURTROOM FILED AUGUST 27, 2012 In the last 5 hearings the media have heard oral arguments quoting and referring to submitted pleadings that are unavailable to the public. Because the Register of Actions is not released until Friday, when the parties oral arguments on a series of motions that the media are not even aware of. Accordingly the media request that no proceeding in this case be closed to the public.

100 MEDIA PETITIONERS CORRECTED REQUEST TO BE HEARD IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER, PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF ANY ORDER CLOSING THE COURTROOM

FILED AUGUST 28, 2012

The Media has added references to the First Amendment to the Constitution, article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution regarding publics right to attend judicial proceedings, that if the Court decides to hold a closed hearing then it should do so only to protect government interest of a higher order.

101 PEOPLES MOTION P014 MOTION FOR COURT ORDER AUTHORISING COLLECTION OF NONTESTIMONIAL IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO CRIM P 16(II)(A)(1) FILED AUGUST 28, 2012 The Defendant is charged with the following: BLACKENED OUT DNA EVIDENCE: BLACKENED OUT In order to get a DNA comparison, Prosecutors request that Aurora Police get a DNA sample from the defendant. DNA was collected from James Holmes on July 20, 2012. Samples are usually given to Colorado Bureau of Investigation to develop a genetic profile. This time around they were not sent to Colorado Bureau of Investigation but sent to the FBI in Quantico. As a result the CBI need samples of their own. They request that they be allowed to collect 6 swabs from inside the defendants mouth for forensic analysis.

Items collected from the apartment, theatre and car have been examined for fingerprints. Even though the People did obtain finger prints but they are not suitable for fingerprint analysis and request to get more fingerprints. The People request that they be able to take a photograph of the Defendant at the time of nontestimonial identification evidence. The People say they think the Defendants lawyers should be present for collection of all these items. Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 The Defendant is charged with the following: The defendant entered a crowded movie theatre, the Century 16 in Aurora Colorado, through an emergency exit at approximately 12.38 a.m on July 20, 2012 The Defendant entered the theatre with three weapons, a shotgun, an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, and a .40 caliber handgun. The defendant deployed a can of what has been described as tear gas, which he threw across the movie theatre. Left inside the theatre were numerous spent rounds, lose unfired rounds, ammunition magazines with unfired bullets inside of them, including a high-capacity drum magazine for the AR-15. The shotgun was found inside the theater. The AR-15 was found in the vicinity of the theater emergency exit. The Defendant also left a second .40 caliber handgun in a vehicle he left parked outside the emergency exit he used to enter the theater. The Police located numerous explosive devices, incendiary devices and ignition systems in his apartment after he was arrested at the theater.

102

DNA EVIDENCE 2. The guns, ammunition, magazines, and tear gas canister have been collected as evidence and either have been swabbed for collection of DNA evidence, are in the process of being swabbed for DNA evidence, or will be swabbed for DNA evidence. Other evidence has been collected that will be analysed for DNA analysis, as well. 3. The People believe that DNA profiles can be developed from the guns, ammunition, magazines, and tear gas canister, and other items can be compared with the defendants DNA profile. This comparison would constitute identification evidence to be used at the trial in this case. It could be used to present evidence that the defendant had physical contact with the guns, ammunition, magazines, canister, and other evidence.

103 RESPONSE TO PEOPLES MOTION P014 MOTION FOR COURT ORDER AUTHORISING COLLECTION OF NON-TESTIMONIAL IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO CRIM P 16(II)(A)(1)

FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2012

The Defense objects to the additional items being sought from James Holmes. They say that unless they can prove they have unidentifiable forensic evidence to compare to James Holmes DNA and fingerprints, it does not have a legitimate need to collect this information. They say that they do have samples of his DNA and that DNA was given to CBI. The People do not provide any evidence to suggest that the DNA went directly to the FBI in Quantico. They want to know why the current set of fingerprints the government does have are not good enough. They also argue that the government already has a booking photo, why do they need another one? Mr Holmes wants the government to provide evidence as to why they need additional information. They also conclude that requesting this additional information would be an unreasonable search and seizure under United States and Colorado Constitutions.

104 PEOPLES REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION P014

FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

The People argue point by point with the Defenses objection to additional DNA and fingerprint samples and they also attach evidence and documentation from the FBI, Aurora Police Department and Latent Lift Log.

105 ORDER RE PEOPLES MOTION (P014) MOTION FOR COURT ORDER AUTHORISING COLLECTION OF NON-TESTIMONIAL IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO CRIM P 16(II)(a)(1) (P014)

FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2012

The Court grants this motion.

106 COPY OF EXHIBIT ENVELOPE FROM 8-30-12 MOTIONS HEARING

FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

Here is just a copy of the envelope.

107 REPLY TO PROSECUTORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR MR HOLMES EDUCATION RECORDS (D014)

FILED AUGUST 20, 2012 This motion is lodged as a response to the Courts proposal of an in camera review of education records. James Holmes maintains that the records are privileged. He argues that the information that the prosecutors want have nothing to do with the charges.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Point 3, second sentence Holmes privileged medical and/or mental health records. Point 3, fourth sentence not except medical and/or mental health records.

108 ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DEFENDANTS EDUCATIONAL RECORDS (D014)

FILED AUGUST 27, 2012

Note: this is a 33 page document where pages 8 33 are blackened out.

The Court finds that production and inspection of the education records is required for the People to properly prepare for trial. The Court finds the subpoena was made in good faith. The Court finds some blackened information is privileged and is not to be given to the prosecutors. The Court will allow an in camera review.

Partially Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Second paragraph, last line include any medical records Fourth paragraph, fourth line not subpoenaed medical and psychiatric records and therefore Fourth paragraph, fourth line under a medical record privilege does not Fourth paragraph (cont on page 2), line 7 included medical records, and asks Page 3, point 2, line 7 and made threats against individuals Page 5, roman numeral 3, second paragraph, line 2 they are medical records. Page 5, capital A, first paragraph, lines 3 and 4 records of [m]edical, mental health, sociological, and scholastic achievement data on. Page 5, capital A, first paragraph, lines 5 and 6 released. C.R.S. 24-72-204(3)(a)(I). Additionally, C.R.S. 22-1-123 and C.R.S. 24-72-204(3)(e) mandate that B Medical Records

State and federal statues prohibit the disclosure of medical records, creating privilege and confidentiality for such records. Se, e.g., C.R.S. 24-72-204(3)(a)(I) (stating [m]edical, mental health, sociological, and scholastic achievement data on individual persons are generally exempt from disclosure under CORA); C.R. S 22-32-109.3(1) (stating school districts shall maintain confidentiality of any medical, psychological, sociological, and scholastic achievement data collected concerning individual students); C.R.S. 13-90-107(d). (g) (creating statutory doctor patient and psychologist patient privilege); Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 45 C.F.R. 164.502 (defining privacy requirements for individually identifiable health information). Defendant argues that his education records from the University of Colorado are protected under these privilege and

109 confidentiality statues. While Defendant is correct that an individual must waive doctor-patient or psychologist-patient privilege before the trial court may order treatment records be produced for an in camera review, People v. Sisneros, 55 P.3d 797,800 (Colo. 2002), the University of Colorado has represented that the subpoenaed materials do not include any of the Defendants medical records do not apply. If any part of the records is medical in nature, the Court agrees with Defendant and FINDS that the records remain privileged absent waiver by Defendant and cannot be discovered by the People. Page 6, roman numeral IV, second line privileged medical or psychiatric documents. Page 6, roman numeral IV, fourth line See e.g Bachofer, 192 P.3d at 460. Page 6, roman numeral IV, lines 8 and 9 People vs Ullery 984 P.2d 586, 590

Pages 8 33 are still fully redacted.

110 RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE SDT 2

FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 This document is completely blackened out. Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 This subpoena is addressed to Custodian of Records C/O Patrick ORourke, University Counsel University of Colorado 1800 Grant Street, Suite 800 DENVER, CO 80203 They are ordered to appear at court on September 20 2012 at 9am and to bring with them:

James Records Complete student application Class schedules Transcripts of grades Departmental files contained in the Department of Neuroscience Building access records Oral examination documents Testing materials Documents from University of Colorado Behavioural Evaluation and Threat Assessment team Campus police records

The following information needs to be redacted from the information requested about: Names and locations of other students HIPAA information Medical information Social security information Contact information Drivers licence numbers State identity numbers

111 PEOPLES PLEADING (P10) BRIEF RELATING TO XXXXXX PSYCHIATRIST-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE

FILED AUGUST 14, 2012

This is another heavily redacted pleading. I thought I might be able to join the pieces together but unfortunately I was not able to. I am pretty sure that this is about doctor-patient privilege and the package

Points of interest: 1. This point may be just an example to make their point or something that actually happened, I cannot tell due to the many redactions in this document. Page 4 of 16 (Statements made to nurse during discharge from hospital not protected by privilege when they are not related to the xxxxxxx but instead to finding him a way home since he had come from out of state) Page 13 of 16 This is a unique situation because it involves an item sent to xxxx but never received by her. It was sent in the midst of the defendant entering a movie theatre and shooting at scores of innocent movies goersThe People believe that this provides strong circumstantial evidence that the contents of the package were not for xxxxx but were likely something else entirely. The fact that the package contained a number of xxxxxxxxx was not for any xxxxxx. Page 14 of 16 The notebook and the burnt currency are not xxxxxxxxx. Until and unless reviewed by this court, nobody knows what they are, or even whether they would be, in any way, related to xxxxxxxxx

2.

3.

Partially Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 The People address issues regarding privileges derived from C.R.S 13-90-107 and say that because Dr Fenton is a psychiatrist the professional relationship falls under physician-patient privilege. Two things need to happen for privilege to occur under this relationship: 1. 2. A physician-patient relationship; and The information was necessary to enable the psychiatrist to prescribe or act for the patient.

This legislation was created to encourage patients to fully disclose medically relevant information to the physicians by reducing the possibility of humiliation or embarrassment through subsequent public disclosure of such information to the physician. Information acquired by a physician that does not relate to a physicians actions on behalf of the patient does not fall within the privilege.

112 The People think that because the Defense has mentioned they are looking into the Defendants mental illness and if Mr Holmes may possibly enter an insanity plea, then he will be waiving his privilege. According to the American Psychiatric Association Principles of Medical Ethics says When, in the clinical judgment of a treating psychiatrist, the risk of danger is deemed to be significant, the psychiatrist may reveal confidential information disclosed by the patient. United States v Lincoln (No privilege attached to a notebook that the defendant was asked to keep as a thought journal for psychotherapeutic purposes when it contained threats against the life of President of the United States and the First Lady) The People say that specific threats of violence is not recognized as confidential under Colorado law and can be freely shared with the police and affected parties.

Note: reference to burnt currency has now been redacted

113 PEOPLES PLEADING (P013) SUBMISSION OF APPARENT MEDICAL INFORMATION TO COURT IN A SEALED ENVELOPE

FILED AUGUST 20, 2012

The Police have given the Prosecutors 600 pages of discovery. The paralegal assigned to the case has discovered that a portion of the discovery contain something that appears to be some kind of XXXXXXX to the defendant possibly provided by the University to a police officer. The paralegal immediately told the prosecutors who in turn put these pages into a sealed envelope.

The prosecutors have attached the envelope to this pleading. They do not object to the defense being given these documents. Aurora police have advised they will remove these documents from their imaging file. Also given with the discovery was a disk of photos of the defendant which should not have been given to them. No one has seen the images except for the paralegal. The disc is also attached to this pleading.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 The portion of the discovery found by the paralegal assigned to the case was a photocopy of a prescription for James Holmes.

114 PEOPLES PLEADING (P017) BRIEF RELATING TO CORRECT STATUTORY PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR PATIENT PRIVILEGE OR PSYCHOLOGIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGE

FILED AUGUST 24, 2012

This brief is in response to the Court order to address questions about doctor-patient privilege. They refer to a lot of the revised statutes and it is complex. Basically the parties are arguing over subsections of paragraphs of certain Colorado statutes. The People say that the Defense is referring to statues that talks about counsellors, social workers and like NOT physicians or psychiatrists, to put it simply. They also say that XXXX is not a psychologist. There is also a lot of redacted information in this pleading.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Most of the unredacted information is in relation to Dr Lynne Fenton, particularly her CV. If you are interested in reading it, it is now available.

115 PEOPLES PLEADING (P018) POSITION REGARDING RELEASE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE FILED BY PERSON IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES BY NAME WITH INITIALS

FILED AUGUST 27, 2012

The People think that this has been filed by a person impersonating XXX and not to be released to media at this time.

Unredacted document dated October 26, 2012 The initials in this document is unredacted to show Y.P.Oand then a handwritten amendments next to the O with L

116 ORDER RE PEOPLES PLEADING (P018) POSITION REGARDING RELEASE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE FILED BY PERSON IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES BY NAME WITH INITIALS

FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

People have stated that the police have launched an investigation into this matter and nothing further is to be done until the investigation is complete. Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Line 1 Yeom Pyo Lee Line 5 Y.P.L

117 PEOPLES PLEADING (P023) LIST OF CORA REQUESTS MADE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO

FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2012

The People advise the University have contacted them to advise the number of CORA requests submitted. The University gave the DA a copy of that list and which is attached to this pleading.

Partially unredacted version released October 26, 2012 Point 1; second line: of Dr. Patrick Fox,. Point 2; third line: attached Dr. Foxs CV

Dr Foxs CV is still redacted.

118 MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF DEFENSE EXPERT (P019)

FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

During the heading of August 30, the Defense advise that they had XXX sitting as a advisory witness but this witness is not available until September 20, 2012. The Prosecutor are requesting details of this witness together with a CV of this person.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Point 1, line 1 had a Dr. Patrick Point 1, line 2 Fox sitting Point 1, line 4 Dr. Fox, another doctor or a different expert witness at the next court date. Dr Fox..

119 DEFENSE REPONSE TO PEOPLES MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF DEFENSE EXPERT (P019)

FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

James Holmes advises that even though one is only required to provide extra information on experts in a trial situation, not in a pre-trial situation, he will provide that information anyway.

The CV has been blackened out.

120 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF DEFENSE EXPERT (P019)

FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

The Court find the Peoples Disclosure is Moot.

121 ORDER RE MOTION REQUESTING RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES PRIOR TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PRIVILEGE (D015)

FILED AUGUST 23, 2012 NOTE: I BELIEVE THIS DOCUMENT AND THE DOCUMENT TITLED ORDER RE MOTION REQUESTING RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES PRIOR TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PRIVILEGE (D015) ARE THE SAME DOCUMENT

Partially Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 The Court finds that while Dr Fenton is a psychiatrist is covered by the physician-patient privilege. Insufficient information has been provided as to whether Dr Fenton is a registered psychotherapist and is subject to the scope of privilege in 13-90-107(1)(g) or whether she participated in psychotherapy with the Defendant. The Court asks Counsel to provide more information in this regard. The Court also finds that 13-21-117 does not constitute a waiver of psychiatrist-patient privilege in general but does exempt from privilege a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons as well as exempting from civil liability and professional discipline the psychiatrist who discloses the threat.

122 ORDER RE MOTION REQUESTING RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES PRIOR TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PRIVILEGE (D015)

FILED AUGUST 27, 2012

NOTE: I BELIEVE THIS DOCUMENT AND THE DOCUMENT TITLED ORDER RE MOTION REQUESTING RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES PRIOR TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PRIVILEGE (D015) ARE THE SAME DOCUMENT Partially Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 The Court finds that while Dr Fenton is a psychiatrist is covered by the physician-patient privilege. Insufficient information has been provided as to whether Dr Fenton is a registered psychotherapist and is subject to the scope of privilege in 13-90-107(1)(g) or whether she participated in psychotherapy with the Defendant. The Court asks Counsel to provide more information in this regard. The Court also finds that 13-21-117 does not constitute a waiver of psychiatrist-patient privilege in general but does exempt from privilege a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons as well as exempting from civil liability and professional discipline the psychiatrist who discloses the threat.

123 PEOPLES NOTICE OF REDCATION OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PRIVACY OF A WITNESS IN THIS CASE

FILED SEPTEMBER 21, 2012

The People advise that the FBI and the Aurora Police contacted a colleague of James Holmes at UC. This witness said that he/she had text messages from James Holmes. Law enforcement asked if they could take the witness phone to download the text messages from James Holmes. The witness agreed only if the relevant text messages were download and nothing else. It has been advised that law enforcement officials could only retrieve the related texts if they downloaded the whole phone. The program they used would not allow them to download specific texts. The witness was NOT informed and they proceeded to download the whole phone. The DAs office was provided with a disc from Aurora Police Department that contained files and examination reports from James Holmes residence which included Lenovo Computer, NZXT computer tower, Toshiba laptop, iPhone, iPod, Lepan Tablet PC, and PNY Attache USB. Also included on this disc of James Holmes case information was the Witness iPhone. The entire disc was downloaded onto a hard drive and the folder containing the Witness iPhone was removed and put into another location on the hard drive. And then everything from Jamesapartment was put on a disc labelled DVD67 and sent to his lawyers. Witness iPhone was reviewed and all personal information was redacted by the DAs office. The information provided from the Witness iPhone amounted to 2,275 pages worth of information. Only a small part of that related to James Holmes. The Witness has now been advised of what has happened and the Witness has requested that all irrelevant information be redacted before being sent over to the Defense. This has been done.

124 SUBMISSION OF INVESTIGATORY REPORT IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER (C004E)

FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012

The People are advising that have received Order C-4E. This is an investigation into a motion lodged on August 27, 2012. The police think they know who did lodge the motion but at this time do not have enough evidence to do anything about it.

Unredacted document released October 26, 2012 Page 3, Subject: Carli Richards Page 3, second sentence to the Carli Richards motion

125 SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (C011) FILED SEPTEMBER 7, 2012

This is another housekeeping order in regards to redated and unredacted motions and pleadings setting out procedures.

126 PEOPLES MOTION TO REDACT THE VICTIMS NAMES FROM THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC COURT FILE AND ON THE COURTS WEBSITE (P024)

FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

The People object to the victims names being listed on the Complaint and Information document and replace it with a redacted version of the document.

127 MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATION OF COURTS ORDER LIMTING PRETRIAL PUBLICITY (D-018)

FILED OCTOBER 2ND 2012

James Holmes through his lawyers requests a hearing take place regarding the release of his new mug shot. The police are well aware of the Courts Amended Order Re Motion to Limit Pre-Trial Publicity and that the police are prohibited from releasing information to the public that shall not exercise their custodial authority over an accused individual in a manner that is likely to result in .[t]he deliberate exposure of a person in custody for the purpose of photographing .. by representative of the news media. Also this photograph was taken and distributed at the time the prosecution requested a new photo be taken as per Motion for Court Order Authorizing Collection of Non-Testimonial Evidence (P-014) which is pending before the Court. James Holmes wants to know why this photo was taken, for what purpose? He also wants to know who distributed the photo. James Holmes asks the Court to set this motion in a evidentiary hearing.

Attached to the Motion is a photocopy of a news article by Denver Post dated September 20, 2012.

128 MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING THIS COURTS ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY BY LEAKING PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (D-017)

FILED OCTOBER 2ND, 2012

James Holmes lawyers think that the government has violated the Courts order to limit pre-trial publicity when they leaked the contents of the package. The Defense lists all the previous Motions filed with the Court regarding this issue. They say that the governments actions has seriously jeopardised James Holmes constitutional rights to the fair trial and requests that the Court sets this motion in a evidentiary hearing.

129 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATION OF COURTS ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-018) FILED OCTOBER 3RD, 2012

The Court has GRANTED this motion. It is set down for hearing on October 11, 2012 at 9am.

130 MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE FILED OCTOBER 1ST 2012

This motion is filed on behalf of Brandon K Axelrod, Denise N Traynom and Joshua R Nowlan, victims in this matter. They are requesting access to review specific documents to gain access to Theater 9. The documents they require are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant; Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant; any Inventory which was prepared following execution of Search Warrant; Disclosure of 911 transcripts.

They require access to Theater 9 to document and take photographs. They say that even though the Court has hinted that some of these documents will be released after proof evident hearing scheduled for the week of November 13, they cannot wait that long. Lawyers for these victims have approached both the DA and the Public Defender asking them to understand why they are requesting these documents and access to the Theater. It is understood that Chris Orman of the DA has objected to this motion. The victims are ready for any Motion to be lodged regarding them not divulging information obtained in these documents. These documents and access is required for their own civil suit against Cinemark USA Inc.

131 ORDER RE: MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE (C-14) FILED OCTOBER 2ND 2012

The Court says that since the Theater has now been released as a crime scene, the Court no longer has jurisdiction and no longer has control. Request for access to the Theater is DENIED due to lack of jurisdiction. The Court will follow Colorado Rules regarding the request to access to certain documents and ask the responding parties (DA and Public Defender) to respond to this request within 21 days and the moving party (victims counsel) 7 days after that response.

132 PEOPLES FIRST PLEADING IN RESPONSE TO D-17 FILED OCTOBER 9TH 2012

The DA is responding to motion lodged by Defense with regard to Motion for Sanctions for Violating this Courts Order Limiting Pre-Trial Publicity by leaking privileged and confidential information to the Media and request evidentiary hearing (D-017) filed October 2nd.

The DA say the Motion is too vague to respond to for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. does not specifying the actual extra-judicial statement; does not specify who made the alleged extra-judicial statement; does not specify whether the extra-judicial statement is factually accurate or inaccurate or both; which specific pages are they referring to in the 16,000 pages mentioned in the Motion?

4.

133 NOTICE RE: D-018 FILED OCTOBER 9TH 2012

This is in regard to Motion for Evidentiary Hearing to Investigate Violation of Courts Order Limiting Pre-Trial Publicity (D-018) Filed October 2nd. After conversations with Arapahoe County Sheriffs Department the Defense is no longer requesting sanctions or a hearing regard D-018. D-018 is now rendered MOOT.

134 ORDER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RE: MOTION TO UNSEAL REDACTED INFORMATION (C-13)

FILED: OCTOBER 12, 2012

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to C-24, P-13, C-15, oral arguments on October 11,. The Court is allowing all parties involved to provide additional documents to supplement their arguments regarding redaction by no later than 12pm October 22, 2012.

135 MOTION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 25, 2012 HEARING (D-019)

FILED OCTOBER 16, 2012

James Holmes is requesting the Court to continue the hearing scheduled for October 16, 2012. As the Court is now requesting additional information be presented by the Defense in according to October 12 Order Allowing Opportunity to Submit Additional Documents Re: Motion to Unseal Redacted Information (C-13) which is due by October 22, 2012. The Defense feels that the medias demands are starting to interfere their ability to provide effective representation.

As the Defense does believe that the witness detail should not be unredacted, they are more than happy to provide the Court with requested additional information. Meanwhile they are also trying to conduct a serious investigation, get through 18,000 page of discovery, responding to pleadings. As a result they will not be ready in time for October 25,2012.

136 ORDER RE: RENEWED MOTION TO QUASH PEOPLES SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (PSDT-2) FOR DEFENDANTS EDUCATIONAL RECORDS (D-14a)

FILED OCTOBER 16, 2012 This comes before the Court due to the following documents: (a) (b) (c) Peoples Subpoena to Produce (PSDT-2) filed September 13, 2012; Defendants Renewed Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for Defendants Education Records (D-14) filed August 8, 2012; Order Re: Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for Defendants Education Records (D14) filed August 27, 2012.

The Court FINDS and ORDERS: FACTS At the hearing dated August 30, 2012 the Court granted the People to reissue their subpoena. The original subpoena issued August 3, 2012 provided 340pages of documents from the University. After an in camera review the Court released 27 pages from the 340 page document. Another subpoena was issued to the University on September 10, 2012 which requested the following: completed student application, class schedules and transcripts of grades, departmental files, all building access records, all oral examination documents and testing materials, all University of Colorado Behavioural Evaluation and Threat Assessment team documents and all campus police records. The University has provided these documents (in duplicate). Both sets were separated into 9 parts:Registrar File The Court FINDS that certain documents in this section authored by James Holmes and sent to the University as part of his application be released to the People. The Court ORDERS the release of: CU 000020-28; CU 000031-36; CU 000040; and CU 000045. The Court FINDS the remaining documentation is not to be released. Class Schedule The Court FINDS that the People do not need the class schedules and hereby ORDERS documents CU 000056-63 not released. Unofficial Transcripts This section has already been released to the People under Order Re: Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for Defendants Educational Records (D-14) and FINDS documents CU 000064-65 be released to the People.

137 Department File The Court FINDS the people need some of these documents and ORDERS the following documents be released: CU 000070-80; CU 000093-96; CU 000099-105; CU 000112-119; CU 000125-130; CU 000133-136; CU 000140-142; CU 000148-150; CU 000336. Database Note The Court FINDS the People do not need these documents and ORDERS documents CU 000151-153 not be released. University of Colorado Police Records and Intelligence File The Court FINDS that the People have shown they do need these documents (everything except information relating to Dr Fenton or privilege communications. The Court is unsure about document CU 000277 as the Dr Fenton quotations written in Officer Whittens notes cannot be proved they are actual Dr Fenton quotations, so the Court will not release that file. The Court will release the following CU 000154-233; CU 000235-236; CU 000241-251; CU 000254-266; CU 000270-276; CU 000278; CU 000280; CU 000291-317. University of Colorado Police Report This section has already been released to the People under (D-14) and FINDS document CU 000320334 be released. Voice mail The People have not proven they need these documents, the Court ORDERS document CU 000318 not to be released.

Even though this document states that copies of the released information is attached to this file, unfortunately the information is not attached to the publics version of this document.

138 PEOPLES RESPONSE TO D-019: DEFENSE MOTION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 25, 2012 FILED: unknown The People do not object to a continuance or CORA requests. The People want to still meet on October 25, 2012 and discuss the preliminary dates.

139 ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONTINUE THE OCTOBER 25, 2012 HEARING (D-19) FILED: unknown

As both parties agree to the continuance the Court GRANTS the motion. Both parties are ORDERED to attend Court on October 25, 2012 to discuss scheduling.

140 RESPONSE TO PEOPLES NOTICE OF REDACTION OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRIVACY OF A WITNESS IN THIS CASE (P-022) FILED: OCTOBER 12, 2012 The Defense objects to government pages 14,332 to 16,52 of discovery. Mr Holmes is entitled to full discovery. In regards to the witness telephone messages in relation to Mr Holmes. As the forensics department could not just download the information they needed, they downloaded all information stored on that phone without advising the witness. The prosecution has reviewed the 2,275 pages of the downloaded data which even they say the majority of the information is irrelevant to the case. Instead of asking the Courts guidance in this regard, they decided to read all the information downloaded regardless. The defense has spoken to XXXXXX who says that the Assistant District Attorney Lisa Teesch-Maquire called XXXXXX and told XXXXXX the DAs office was reading the witness personal information and that this information should not be given to the Defense as they would misuse the information. As a result Ms Teesch-Maquire then told XXXXX they would redacted all information before turning it over to the Defense. The Defense is sensitive to their concerns but wishes to view this information. Now that the Government has received permission to review the information, they cannot now stop the defense in seeing this information. The Defense asks that one member of the Defense review the unredacted documents together with one member of the prosecution. Attached to this response is a copy of the Aurora Police Department Consent to Search Computer Equipment/Electronic Data

141 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE (C-014) FILED: OCTOBER 22ND 2012 The Defense requests that this motion be denied as the law does not authorize them to intervene in Mr Holmes criminal case to engage in their civil pursuit. Release of information at this early stage would jeopardize his right to a fair trial.

142 PEOPLES RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE (C-14) FILED: unknown The People request that the Court deny the motion.

143 ORDER RE: PEOPLES MOTION TO REDACT THE VICTIMS NAMES FROM THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC COURT FILE AND ON THE COURTS WEBSITE (P-24) FILED: OCTOBER 25, 2012

The Court FINDS redaction improper and therefore the request is DENIED.

144 ORDER RE: MEDIAS MOTION TO UNSEAL REDACTED INFORMATION (VICTIMS IDENTITIES) (C-13)

FILED OCTOBER 25, 2012 After hearing on July 30, 2012 the Complaint was released and the witness list was completely redacted. September 18, 2012 the People filed a Motion to Add Additional Counts 143-152 and gave the Court a unredacted copy and a redacted copy. The Court put the redacted copy in the public file. The Complaint The People say because there have been fraudulent motion made in the names of victims that the continues release of the victims names potentially compromises the rights of the victims to be free from harassment or abuse. The Defense say because the media have been hounding the victims and witnesses they in turn are reluctant to speak to the Defense. The Court is aware there has been some harm to at least some victims and witnesses. There have been two instances where it appears a third party has stolen the name of a victim or witness and use those names to file court documents in this case. Warrants and Affidavits The Court orders that Warrants and Affidavits remain supressed. Pleadings in the Case File The Court finds there is no harm releasing details regarding Dr Lynne Fenton. All references to the package is to remain redacted.

145 ORDER RE: MEDIA PETITIONERS MOTION TO UNSEAL EXCESSIVELY REDACTED INFORMATION FROM JUDICIAL RECORDS AND TO AMEND SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER C-11 (C15 FILED OCTOBER 25, 2012

The Court GRANTS the medias request to consolidate C-15 and C-13. The request to unseal redacted information is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. These findings are found in ORDER RE: MEDIAS MOTION TO UNSEAL REDACTED INFORMATION (VICTIMS IDENTITIES) (C-13).

146 ORDER TO AMEND COUNTS 40, 75, 98, 131 AND 142 OF THE FELONY COMPALINT/INFORMATION (P-27) FILED OCTOBER 11, 2012

The Court ORDERS the amendments as follows:

COUNT 40 COUNT 75 COUNT 98 COUNT 131 COUNT 142

attempted to cause the death of KIRSTEN DAVIS attempted to cause the death of JENNIFER ALIVA-ARREDONDO attempted to cause the death of KIRSTEN DAVIS attempted to cause the death of JENNIFER ALIVA-ARREDONDO as charged in counts 1 through 140, and counts 143 through 166

147 PEOPLES MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL COUNTS 143-152 (P-20)

FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

The Prosecutors want to add the following counts: COUNT 143 COUNT 144 COUNT 145 COUNT 146 COUNT 147 COUNT 148 COUNT 149 COUNT 150 COUNT 151 COUNT 152 attempted to cause the death of CORBIN DATES attempted to cause the death of CORBIN DATES attempted to cause the death of LAUREN ELLIS attempted to cause the death of LAUREN ELLIS attempted to cause the death of JAMIE ROHRS attempted to cause the death of JAMIE ROHRS attempted to cause the death of EVAN MORRISON attempted to cause the death of EVAN MORRISON attempted to cause the death of RICHELLE HILL attempted to cause the death of RICHELLE HILL

148 PEOPLES MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL COUNTS 153-166 (P-27)

FILED OCTOBER, 2012

The Prosecutors want to add the following counts: COUNT 153 COUNT 154 COUNT 155 COUNT 156 COUNT 157 COUNT 158 COUNT 159 COUNT 160 COUNT 161 COUNT 162 COUNT 163 COUNT 164 COUNT 165 COUNT 166 attempted to cause the death of KAYLAN BAILEY attempted to cause the death of KAYLAN BAILEY attempted to cause the death of KELLY BOWEN attempted to cause the death of KELLY BOWEN attempted to cause the death of SHIRLEY CLARK attempted to cause the death of SHIRLEY CLARK attempted to cause the death of HAILEE HENSLEY attempted to cause the death of SHIRLEY CLARK attempted to cause the death of VICTOR NAVA attempted to cause the death of VICTOR NAVA attempted to cause the death of DAYBRA THOMAS-KIZZAR attempted to cause the death of DAYBRA THOMAS-KIZZAR attempted to cause the death of CAITLIN PEDDICORD attempted to cause the death of CAITLIN PEDDICORD

149 PEOPLES MOTION TO AMEND COUNTS P-27

FILED OCTOBER 9, 2012

The People wish to amend the following:

COUNT 40 COUNT 75 COUNT 98 COUNT 131 COUNT 142

attempted to cause the death of KIRSTEN DAVIS attempted to cause the death of JENNIFER ALIVA-ARREDONDO attempted to cause the death of KIRSTEN DAVIS attempted to cause the death of JENNIFER ALIVA-ARREDONDO as charged in counts 1 through 140, and counts 143 through 166

150 AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN D ZANSBERG FILED OCTOBER 22, 2012

This Affidavit attaches: Exhibit 1: a compilation of news reports by Denver Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, KDVR, NCB, KCNC, KMGH, KUSA, and miscellaneous witness reports.

Exhibit 2: true copy of photos and article published on page A-2 The Denver Post Wednesday October 17, 2012 of attorney Marc Burn speaking at a press conference with his clients (victims and family members) of the Aurora Theater Shooting standing behind him.

151 MEDIA PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING IN RESPONSE TO COURTS ORDER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RE: MOTION TO UNSEAL REDACTED INFORMATION (C-13)

FILED OCTOBER 22, 2012 On October 11, 2012 the People and the Defense were arguing mainly about the medias request to unredacted the witness and the victims identities. They did not talk about the second motion lodged by the Media asking for everything else to be redacted. The Media asks that everything else should be unredacted. The People also argue that the Court should seal all affidavits and all other factual information contact in the file. The Media say that this crime is not a secret and that the public have a right to know what is going on. Many statements have been made in Court together with public statements made by government officials via press conferences and on-the-record statements. On October 11 hearing the People asked the Court to keep the 32 page witness list under seal as well as witnesses appearing anywhere in the file. The media presume they are talking about Dr Lynne Fenton, US Postal Inspector Greg MacGahey, ATF Special Agent Seven Beggs and Aurora Police Detective Alton Reedall all of whom testified in Court on August 30 2012. The media say that many of the witnesses will be law enforcement officers. Disclosing law enforcement officers does not constitute an invasion of their right of privacy. Since the police officers are ordered not to give prejudicial extrajudicial statements, they cannot prejudice the Defence of a fair trial. They ask all witnesses be unsealed. Dozens of witnesses have voluntarily spoken to press, on-the-record and on-camera. As a result they cannot assert a right of privacy in their identities. Some of the victims have identified themselves publically by appearing at press conferences regarding the victims fund, by filing lawsuits. The Peoples request to seal victims names is overboard. Both Defense and Prosecution say that victims and witnesses were subject to harassment by members of the press. The media request both parties provide an affidavit from such witness/victim in open court. Even if it were the case, the media still believe that all names should be made public. The fact that numerous victims and witnesses and their families have not hesitated to speak with the press should show that their names should be unsealed.

152 ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF DEFENDANTS UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO E-MAILS (C-16) FILED OCTOBER 26, 2012 The Prosecution provided to the Court two discs containing emails from James Holmes University email address without actually looking at the emails first. Ms Pearson (Prosecution) asks the Court, since they submitted the discs for the Court on August 23, 2012, they have not heard back from the Court till this date (October 25, 2012). Has the Court looked at the discs yet? There is a transcript from Court detailed in the Order between Ms Pearson, Ms Brady and the Court. Ms Pearson says that they do not know what is on the discs. They assume the Court has not seen the discs as yet. She suggests the Court either print out the emails and read them through or ask the University to re-submit the emails without providing the privileged emails between patient and doctor. The Court advised they have not read the discs because of the issue of privilege and they are currently under seal. Ms Brady then said that she believed the emails are privileged. Can they look at the emails and decide which emails can be seen by all parties and which are privileged. The Court then said that perhaps everyone should agree on what the prosecution have suggested and ask the University to re-issue all emails that are not privileged. This was agreed by all parties.

153 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TRANSCRIPT REQUEST FORM FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2012

This form was lodged by Amy Jorgenson from 18th Judicial District Attorneys office for full transcript of September 20, 2012 hearing.

154 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE FILED OCTOBER 25, 2012 This reply is made on behalf of Victims/Intervenors Brando K Axelrod, Denise N Traynom and Joshua R Nowlan. They ask the Court to allow them and their counsel to review the Affidavits in Support and both Arrest Warrant and Search Warrant as well as the Return on Inventory from the Search Warrant and transcripts of 911 calls and to inspect and object photographs taken by the police as a part of their criminal investigation and note that they are governed by a Protective Order prohibiting them from releasing the information. Attached to this reply is a copy of a letter from the City of Auroras lawyers. They have denied the victims/intervenors lawyers audio tapes and transcripts of 911 calls.

155 ORDER RE: MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE (C-14) FILED: NOT DATED The Court DENIES the reply in support of motion to intervene for limited purpose. Once the proof evident/preliminary hearing takes place, then they are welcome to request the information again.

156 AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (C-11a) FILED OCTOBER 31, 2012 The Court once again reiterates its judicial efficiency guidelines for management of pleadings and to maintain integrity of the record and to assist third parties who have produced documentation in this case.

157 CORA RECORDS REQUESTERS MOTION TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING P-2 ON GROUNDS THAT THE COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO ENTER THAT ORDER

FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2012

CORA means Colorado Open Records Act

The CORA requesters asks the Court to change its mind regarding its previous ruling on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enter Order Granting P-2 and notes that this will be discussed on November 15 hearing . If the Court wishes to have a discussion in this regarding on November 15, the Cora requesters advise that they cannot make it.

158 MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM COURT ORDERS REGARDING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ATTORNEY-ELECT (P-31) FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2012

The Prosecution advises that the term for the current District Attorney expires on January 8, 2012. On November 6 2012 District Attorney-Elect George Brauchlers was elected and whose term will commence on January 8, 2012. As the pre-liminary hearing in this matter is scheduled to start on January 7, 2012 they request that they wish to give District Attorney-Elect George Brauchler but they are worried about the gag order. They have given District Attorney-Elect George Brauchler all the gag order information instead.

159 NOTICE OF DEFENSE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO ORDER RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS BY UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO PURSUANT TO COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT (P-002)

FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2012

The Defense rejects any suggestion of disclosure of records and for the order to remain in effect.

160 PEOPLES SECOND MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO RECORDS P-30

FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2012

The Prosecution advises: that to date CORA has received 38 requests. C.R.S 24-72-204(l)(c) provides: The custodian of any public records shall allow any person the right of inspection of such records or any portion thereof except on one or more of the following grounds: (c) Such inspection is prohibited by rules promulgated by the supreme court of by the order of any court (Emphasis added). Even is the Court does decide to lift the order, it does not necessarily mean the University could release the file has they would have to assess the information themselves and judge accordingly. They wish the order remains intact especially in regard to the release of the names of the University students who are witnesses. They say the release of their names may impact the cooperation in the case. They do not object to a modification of the Order and will consider some of the CORA requests. The prosecution also go through all 38 CORA requests and advise what requests they are happy to have released and which ones they are not happy to release: o They object to the release of any electronic records filed, retained or prepared by campus police relating to James Holmes o They object to the release of documents by Doug Abraham or any documents prepared for law enforcement purposes o They object to the release of any search warrants addressed to the CU o They object to the release campus police reports and complaints about James Holmes but do not object to tickets and parking citations. o They do not object to the request for start dates, salary, title, department, building and overtime payments of CU employees o They do not object to the request for statement released to CNN, correspondence with James Holmes, the BETA/threat assessment handbook, BETA team reports, information relating to Dr Lynne Fenton and James Holmes access card log.

Attached to the motion is a full list of who has made the CORA requests and what they have requested. You can compare what has been requested to what the prosecution has agreed to release and not release if you go through the document yourself. The document is 17 pages long.

161 EMERGENCY MOTION TO CONTINUE NOVEMBER 15, 2012 HEARING (D-020) FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2012

Due to recent developments that have taken place in the last 24 hours, James Holmes is unable to attend hearing set down for November 15, 2012

162 RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION (D-20) FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2012 The Prosecution wants to know what is so wrong with James Holmes that he cannot attend court on November 15, 2012

Update: The Court granted a meeting in Court on November 14, 2012 for 4.15pm and advised that the next hearing will take place on December 10, 2012.

163

ORDER RE: MOTIONFOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM COURT ORDERS REGARDING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ATTORNEY-ELECT (P-31) FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2012

The Court GRANTS this Motion provided Attorney-Elect George Brauchler agrees to be bound by the gag order, specifically Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6(d) and 3.8 and Court Order D2a issued August 13, 2012.