The physical evidence in a 30-year-old Boulder murder case is being reviewed following the finding that a Colorado Bureau of Investigations analyst tampered with DNA testing in hundreds of cases.

Michael Clark, who was found guilty of the shooting death of Marty Grisham in 2012 and then had his verdict upheld in 2020, is being reviewed following assertions that the DNA evidence was manipulated by CBI analyst Yvonne “Missy” Woods, according to Boulder County District Attorney’s Office spokeswoman Shannon Carbone.

Woods claimed in Clark’s case that DNA found on the scene was a mixture of Clark’s DNA and another unknown person’s. However, Clark’s attorney Adam Frank said that this claim violated CBI’s own guidelines for how to decide when a DNA test result shows a mixture. Frank contests that according to CBI’s guidelines, the DNA test result could not be declared a mixture, and that the test result showed a single DNA profile that excluded Clark.

According to the August motion, Woods testified in trial without anyone challenging her, as Clarks’ former defense attorneys did not hire a DNA analyst to review the data.

“His case entirely rose and fell on Missy Woods’ credibility,” Frank said.

In 2023, the bureau found that Woods tampered with DNA testing by omitting and altering data in her work. Following the finding, approximately 3,000 DNA samples were called for retesting statewide. According to Carbone, the CBI review found that in the mishandled cases, data was deleted and altered that concealed Woods’ tampering with controls and Woods’ failure to troubleshoot issues within the testing process. Carbone added that Woods reportedly failed to provide thorough documentation in the case record related to the certain tests that were performed.

Carbone explained that a CBI review did not find that Woods falsified DNA matches or fabricated DNA profiles and the assertions of Woods’ misconduct in the Clark case are beyond the CBI’s discovery. However, Carbone wrote that all of the cases that the CBI flagged for Woods’ involvement should be carefully reviewed.

“The process for collecting all the physical evidence and determining what is available for further analysis is underway; it will take some time. We will have additional updates in the weeks ahead,” Carbone wrote in an email.

Carbone wrote that the office has had, “positive and productive discussions” with Frank and there are a number of pending issues in the case, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and juror misconduct.

In an August motion, Frank wrote that Woods’ involvement in the case undermines Clarks’ conviction and requested for new evidence to be presented.

“In the interests of justice, Mr. Clark moves that the Court vacate his wrongful conviction, end the 12-year-long nightmare he has been living, and allow him to return home to the loving family that is desperately awaiting his return,” Frank wrote in the motion.

Frank said he’s onboard with the DA’s Office testing any evidence in the case through a private lab.

Woods’ attorney Ryan Brackley released a statement on the matter Wednesday.

“We applaud the Boulder District Attorney’s decision to review the DNA evidence in the Michael Clark case, and, really, in any other case in which evolving and advanced DNA technology would provide more clarity towards exculpating or inculpating an accused,” Brackley said. “It’s the right thing to do.”

‘Time, transparency, and accountability’

A hearing is expected to be scheduled in January, but a date has yet to be set.

“Our hope is that by the January hearing, the outside private lab should’ve completed whatever tests they think is possible and we should have the results,” Frank said. “My hope that once the prosecution sees that there is no evidence that Mike was at the scene they will agree to vacate his conviction and agree to dismiss the charges against him.”

Frank said the ball is in the prosecution’s court when it comes to the possibility of a retrial.

“We’re happy that (the DA’s Office is) finding out what testing can be done. We’re confident it will show what Mike has been saying since 1994, which is that he had nothing to do with this crime,” Frank said.

In an email, Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty wrote that Woods’ misconduct may extend back to 2014 and 2018 and was never reported to prosecutors, defense attorneys or the courts.

“I expect that many closed cases will require re-examination and be challenged in court, along with the overall integrity of the processes at the state’s lab,” Dougherty said.

“The significant impact for victims, defendants, and prosecutor’s offices is incredibly concerning. I am glad that CBI is auditing the results of all tests to ensure the integrity of the state’s lab. That is critical to restoring public trust in the system; it is going to require time, transparency, and accountability.”

1994 murder

Grisham, who was 48 at the time of his death on Nov. 1, 1994, was shot four times in the head and chest in the doorway of his apartment after answering a knock at the door during dinner with his girlfriend.

Nobody saw the shooter, and police never found the murder weapon, but investigators were able to gather enough circumstantial evidence and witness testimony to get a conviction.

Boulder police said Clark — who, at the time of the shooting, was friends with Grisham’s daughter, Kristen — had forged checks he stole from Grisham’s apartment. Kristen had asked Clark to watch the apartment about a month before the shooting.

Clark was a suspect from the beginning of the investigation, but was not charged until 2012 after prosecutors found evidence they say linked Clark to the sale of a 9mm gun similar to the one used to shoot Grisham.

While Clark’s attorneys tried to convince the jury there was no hard evidence to prove Clark was the shooter, prosecutors argued the evidence showed Clark was the one person with the means and the motive to kill Grisham.

On Dec. 10, 2012, Clark appealed his conviction to the Colorado Court of Appeals and on Sept. 29, 2016, his conviction was affirmed, according to a motion filed in district court. The Court of Appeals denied a request for rehearing on Nov. 3, 2016.

On July 6, 2017, Clark petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari — asking for a review of his case — but on Oct. 10, 2017, it was denied.

On Feb. 8, 2019, Clark filed a petition in district court, and in January 2020, the court ordered prosecutors to respond to certain arguments made by Clark, including claims he made that his counsel was ineffective by failing to communicate with him and failing to investigate credibility and alternative suspects.

The motion was denied in August 2020.