Boulder Criminal Defense Attorney

McCabe Law

SCHEDULE A FREE CONSULTATION
Call
Contact
News

COURT FINDS BRADY VIOLATIONS IN DEBORAH NICHOLLS CASE

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The El Paso County District Court issued an order on April 28, 2026 finding that the prosecution violated Deborah Nicholls’ constitutional right to a fair trial by suppressing critical scientific evidence that directly contradicted its arson theory at her trial. The court ruled that the suppressed evidence was both favorable to the defense and material under Brady v. Maryland, concluding there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the outcome of her 2008 trial. The matter is scheduled for a status hearing on May 27, 2026 at 10am.

Ms. Nicholls has maintained her innocence throughout more than eighteen years of incarceration. The March 7, 2003 fire that killed her three children was, the defense has consistently argued, a tragic accident — not arson.

What the Prosecution Hid

At the heart of the prosecution’s case was a claim that laboratory testing had confirmed the presence of accelerants — specifically, xylenes consistent with the product Goof Off — in fire debris, on the children’s pajamas, and on the clothing of Ms. Nicholls’ then-husband, Timothy. The jury heard this framed as scientific certainty.

It was not. Concealed from the defense were communications and analysis by Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) analyst Tom Griffin, who had independently reviewed the data from all three laboratories involved in the case. Griffin concluded, among other things, that CBI’s own 2003 testing found no ignitable liquids, likely contamination at Western labs, and that he would not have reported xylenes as indicative of an accelerant. The prosecution also suppressed an email from the prosecutor acknowledging that CBI chemist Tom Netwal — the prosecution’s sole testifying lab analyst — had admitted he probably would not have reported xylenes at all had he not known about the can of Goof Off submitted with the samples.

Griffin had also consulted nationally recognized forensic chemist Reta Newman, then-laboratory director and a leading authority in fire debris analysis, who confirmed that the xylenes found in the samples were products of pyrolysis — the natural burning of materials — not evidence of an intentionally set fire.

“The prosecution built its entire case on the claim that science had confirmed arson using an accelerant. What the prosecution suppressed was the fact that its own scientist did not agree. Deborah Nicholls has spent more than eighteen years in prison because the government hid evidence that could have set her free.”

— Kathleen A. Lord, Korey Wise Innocence Project, University of Colorado

“This ruling confirms what we have argued for years: there was no reliable scientific evidence of arson. The jury that convicted Deborah Nicholls never heard from the government’s own analyst, who agreed with our expert that no ignitable liquid was ever confirmed in this case. That is a fundamental denial of justice.”

— Janene K. McCabe, McCabe Law

How the Evidence Was Hidden

The prosecution endorsed Griffin as a potential trial witness and was legally obligated under Colorado Rule 16 and the U.S. Constitution to disclose his notes, analysis and comparisons. Instead, the lead prosecutor classified Griffin’s work as “work product” and kept it from the defense. Colorado and U.S. Supreme Court precedent is unambiguous: exculpatory material contained in prosecutorial work product is automatically discoverable. That principle was ignored here.

The consequence was devastating. Without the suppressed evidence, the defense was unable to confront prosecution witnesses with the government’s own contradictory findings, unable to call witnesses like Newman who would have dismantled the lab testimony, and unable to seek exclusion of scientifically unreliable canine alert evidence. The defense expert who testified on Ms. Nicholls’ behalf at trial was attacked as a “hired gun” — an attack the prosecution could not have ethically made had the jury known that CBI’s own chemist shared the same conclusions.

“The xylenes found in these samples were a function of pyrolysis. They were not a function of an ignitable liquid. Reporting them as consistent with an accelerant was misleading.”

— Reta Newman, Forensic Chemist and Laboratory Director, testifying at the Brady hearing

The Impact on Trial

The suppressed evidence infected every layer of the prosecution’s case. Fire investigators who testified to arson had each relied on the premise that laboratory testing confirmed an accelerant. A jailhouse informant’s account of a confession — itself uncorroborated and shifting — was given unwarranted credibility by the purported scientific confirmation of Goof Off on the children’s clothing. According to the District Court Judge, even the appellate courts were misled: the Colorado Court of Appeals, in affirming the convictions, noted that “[c]hemical analysis performed on the children’s pajamas, defendant’s jeans, and debris from the fire confirmed the presence of an accelerant.” That finding was wrong, and it was wrong because the prosecution had suppressed the evidence that would have revealed it.

“The suppressed materials made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the prosecution to credibly present any evidence of lab confirmation that an ignitable liquid was used to start this fire. The only reason the prosecution was able to present those lab results with any credibility was because it had suppressed the evidence contradicting them.”

— Sharlene Reynolds, Criminal Defense Expert, testifying at the Brady hearing

Next Steps

This ruling resolves the Brady claim in Ms. Nicholls’ favor. The court has ordered a status conference on May 27, 2026 at 10am. Defense counsel will continue to work toward Ms. Nicholls’ full exoneration. Ms. Nicholls has been separated from her family and community for over 18 years. No ruling can restore that time, but the court’s decision is a significant step toward justice.

Additional Press/Media Coverage