The recent indictment of Missy Yvonne Woods by the state prosecutor in Jefferson County on a staggering 102 counts—including forgery, influencing a public servant, manipulation, and deceptive practices—has shaken the foundation of Colorado’s Bureau of Investigation (CBI). While the prospect of a 60-year sentence may sound like a serious consequence, the reality is far less severe. Given the nature of her case and the political maneuvering that often accompanies high-profile prosecutions, it’s almost certain Woods will negotiate a plea deal with the District Attorney. The likelihood of her serving a full sentence is slim—three years behind bars, at best, with protective custody or even alternative sentencing like home detention being strong possibilities.
The bigger issue here isn’t just Woods herself, but the institution that enabled her misconduct. The CBI’s negligence is glaring—cutting corners, paying Woods exorbitant overtime wages, and prioritizing prosecution numbers over ethical investigations. Their lack of integrity and accountability is appalling. How can Colorado residents continue to trust the CBI when its leadership has demonstrated a complete disregard for transparency? If this agency cannot uphold the basic principles of justice, how can we trust that their lab work—critical in criminal investigations—is accurate and unbiased?
The blame game within the CBI is already in full swing, with Woods and the agency shifting responsibility back and forth. But the real victims in this scandal are the wrongfully convicted men and women sitting in prison due to compromised investigations. This isn’t just an institutional failure—it’s a moral one. And yet, another major player in this crisis must also be held accountable: defense attorneys.
If a defense attorney is truly dedicated to their client, they should be hiring independent expert witnesses, especially in cases involving DNA evidence. However, many attorneys fail to do so, either out of laziness or a fundamental misunderstanding of forensic science. These shortcomings contribute to wrongful convictions just as much as the corruption within the CBI. Now, in the wake of Woods’ downfall, law firms are swarming like vultures—eager to profit from the disaster, sending lawyers into prisons to sign up affected inmates as clients. Instead of genuine advocacy, this has become another grotesque display of greed, with everyone scrambling to make money off the suffering of the wrongfully convicted.
At the heart of it all is a justice system that has lost its credibility. When those entrusted with forensic investigations manipulate evidence, and when attorneys fail in their duty to defend their clients zealously, the result is catastrophic. The Missy Yvonne Woods scandal is not just about one corrupt individual—it is about a broken system that thrives on deception, negligence, and a lack of accountability. Until serious reforms take place, the cycle of wrongful convictions, cover-ups, and institutional failures will continue, leaving countless innocent people trapped behind bars while those responsible evade true justice.
The Michael Clark Case: A True High-Profile Case or Just Noise?
There has been an overwhelming amount of media coverage surrounding Michael Clark’s case, with newspapers like The Denver Post, Boulder’s local papers, and The Gazette labeling it a high-profile case. But is it truly high-profile? Based on my experience working on actual high-profile cases, I can confidently say that Clark’s case does not meet the criteria. Instead, it is a case full of unanswered questions, legal complexities, and circumstantial evidence that fails to provide a black-and-white narrative.
One of the most telling aspects of this case is the repeated dismissal of motions filed by Clark’s attorneys. If there were legitimate legal grounds to challenge his conviction, the courts would have considered them seriously. Yet, time and time again, these motions have been rejected, suggesting that the evidence against Clark is significant enough to keep him behind bars on murder charges.
His family has created a ‘Free Michael Clark’ page, advocating for his release. There is nothing wrong with that—families often stand by their loved ones, believing in their innocence regardless of the evidence. However, belief is not proof. The crucial question remains: Is Michael Clark truly innocent?
There is a fundamental difference between those who claim innocence and those who are genuinely innocent because they did not commit the crime. Which category does Michael Clark fall into? The more I examine this case, the more I question his credibility and how the case has been framed by those supporting his release.
One statement from his supporters stands out: “In April 2011, Mike was 36, married, with three kids, a law-abiding citizen working at Bighorn Ace Hardware + Lumber Management in Silverthorne, CO; active in the community, school, and coaching soccer. Law enforcement had not spoken with him about Grisham’s murder since late 1994.”
While this paints a picture of a model citizen, the reality is more complicated. Clark has a record that includes writing stolen checks and possessing an illegal firearm—hardly the behavior of someone who strictly abides by the law. Moreover, law enforcement officials involved in the original investigation have consistently pointed to Clark as having both motive and opportunity to commit the murder.
Clark’s case also intersects with the growing DNA scandal, where procedural errors and technical violations have resulted in overturned convictions—not necessarily because the accused were innocent, but because legal loopholes were exploited. Is that what is happening here? Has Clark merely found a way to manipulate the system by leveraging DNA inconsistencies? It’s worth noting that the Boulder County District Attorney never officially served Clark with documentation stating that anomalies were found in his DNA.
At the end of the day, the legal system must follow protocol. However, that does not mean every individual released due to procedural errors is truly innocent. While the noise around Michael Clark’s case continues, the real question is whether justice is truly being served—or if this is yet another instance where technicalities, rather than truth, determine the outcome.
Inside the Courtroom: Michael Clark’s Evidentiary Hearing in Boulder County
On January 30th, I attended an evidentiary hearing in Boulder County regarding Michael Clark’s case. Clark was represented by the outspoken and rather interesting attorney, Adam Frank. The courtroom was filled with Clark’s family members, all present to support him—a completely expected and understandable show of solidarity. As I have mentioned before, families often hold steadfast beliefs in their loved one’s innocence, regardless of the evidence, and we must respect that. However, we must also remember that there is a victim in this case, someone who no longer has a voice, and that is precisely why we have a District Attorney to represent them.
Prior to the hearing, I had the opportunity to speak with Michael Clark’s attorney, Mr. Frank, over the phone. To put it plainly, it was one of the most frustrating conversations I have had. Frank exuded an air of superiority, loud and overly confident in his case, to the point of being obnoxious. Inside the courtroom, his behavior did not waver. If I had to describe it, it was as though he had forgotten to take his Adderall before the proceedings. The man, nearly six feet tall, was restless, loud, and impatient. He carried himself with an air of entitlement and even brought along a young Gen Z attorney from the East Coast, seemingly attempting to make a name for himself.
On the other side of the room, the District Attorney, appearing on behalf of the people and the victim, was notably composed, calm, and focused—almost invisible in their approach. The contrast was striking: one side filled with chaos and theatrics, while the other maintained a quiet dignity. It was clear that the judge presiding over the case was growing increasingly aggravated by the defense’s conduct.
Then, Michael Clark was brought into the courtroom. It was my first time seeing him in person. Dressed in a reddish prison jumpsuit, he sat in the wooden defendant’s dock, his hands shackled, his feet restrained as though he might attempt an escape at any moment. While I understand that he is facing murder charges, I couldn’t help but feel that the excessive restraints were unnecessary. Clark did his best to keep his hands down, likely attempting to shield his family from the reality of his situation. His expression was void of emotion—no smiles, no visible relief despite the presence of his loved ones. Instead, he appeared consumed by fear, uncertainty, and concern. Even his family’s presence did not seem to bring him any comfort, which was intriguing to witness.
Watching his family endure this moment was difficult. No one wants to see their loved one in such a vulnerable and restrictive state. I also couldn’t help but think about what was going through Clark’s mind as he sat there in Boulder County Jail—so close to home, yet so far from freedom. He once worked in this city, built a life here, and still had family ties within its borders. That must have been an emotional burden in itself.
Interestingly, Clark could have chosen to appear via Webex, sparing himself the emotional toll of being physically present in court. However, his attorney, Frank, specifically requested an in-person appearance. I often wonder about the emotional strain these hearings place on defendants who are brought in shackled, facing their families just a few feet away but unable to reach them. For many, it must feel like being caught in limbo—so close to familiarity yet bound by the weight of their circumstances.
Michael Clark Case: A Closer Look at Legal Representation and DNA Controversy
Michael Clark’s case continues to generate significant discussion, despite not meeting the criteria of a high-profile case. The media’s persistent coverage, including articles from The Denver Post, Boulder’s local newspapers, and The Gazette, has fueled public debate, yet the legal reality remains unchanged: Clark has not been exonerated, and the motions filed by his attorneys have been consistently dismissed due to lack of legal foundation.
One of the key elements of this case is the issue surrounding Rule 16. Clark did not receive a notice from the District Attorney under this rule, which is a crucial notification signaling that anomalies have been found in DNA evidence. This raises concerns about the work of Yvonne Woods, also known as Missy Woods, a forensic analyst whose credibility is now under scrutiny. Woods has been employed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for over 29 years, and her involvement in numerous cases means that the potential impact of her errors could extend far beyond Clark’s case. If there are discrepancies in her findings, every case she has touched should be re-examined to prevent wrongful convictions.
During the recent evidentiary hearing in Boulder County on January 30th, Clark’s attorney, Adam Frank, made quite an impression—though not necessarily a favorable one. Known for his aggressive courtroom demeanor, Frank appeared impatient, loud, and entitled, drawing attention away from the facts of the case. The contrast between his behavior and that of the District Attorney’s team was stark; while the prosecution remained composed and professional, Frank’s erratic conduct seemed to irritate the judge overseeing the hearing.
Interestingly, a local journalist covering the hearing seemed to have a personal connection to Frank, referring to him by his first name and appearing more interested in his legal maneuvers than in the details of the case. This raises questions about whether the media’s portrayal of the case is being influenced by personal relationships rather than objective reporting.
Another critical aspect of this case is the financial burden it has placed on Clark’s family. In 2019, they paid Frank $100,000 for his initial filings related to DNA testing. Yet, despite years of legal battles, there has been no significant progress toward Clark’s release. This raises a crucial question: if Clark is truly innocent, how much money has been spent on ineffective legal representation? Frank, who boasts about his financial recoveries in his professional bio, appears to be more focused on the financial and reputational benefits of this case than on securing actual results for his client.
Clark’s family has continued to advocate for his release, which is entirely understandable. Families of incarcerated individuals often believe in their loved one’s innocence, regardless of the evidence. However, their belief does not equate to legal justification for release. The reality is that Clark’s case is tangled in legal complexities, and without a solid foundation for his claims, the likelihood of exoneration remains slim.
The broader issue here extends beyond Clark himself. The potential mishandling of DNA evidence by Woods suggests a systemic problem within forensic investigations in Colorado. If her errors are as widespread as some suspect, thousands of cases may need to be reopened and re-examined, with potentially life-altering consequences for those wrongfully convicted.
Ultimately, Clark’s case is not just about one man’s fight for freedom; it is a reflection of deeper issues within the legal system. From questionable forensic practices to attorneys who prioritize fame and financial gain over justice, this case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by those entangled in the criminal justice system. The truth remains elusive, and until concrete evidence emerges, Clark’s fate will remain uncertain.
Court Hearing Summary: January 30, 2025
On January 30, 2025, a court hearing was held to address multiple issues arising from a prior appeal and subsequent developments in the case. Judge Salomone had previously requested status reports regarding certain matters with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the hearing also sought to establish a timeline for addressing two key issues remanded by the Court of Appeals. Additionally, a new issue concerning potential misconduct in DNA testing required further briefing.
Judge: “I did review the file, and I think we are here for a couple of things—the status reports that Judge Salomone had requested on some of the CBI issues, and then probably a setting for a hearing on the two issues highlighted by the Court of Appeals, as well as the possible new CBI issue. People, anything to report? Do I have that about right?”
District Attorney: The prosecution confirmed the necessity of addressing the two issues returned by the Court of Appeals in separate hearings. They noted that the prosecution had not yet filed a reply brief concerning a newly introduced issue, as a briefing schedule had not been set.
Regarding the status of evidence retesting, the DA explained that the prosecution had sought independent DNA retesting, but results were not yet available. The evidence was sent to an independent lab, with an anticipated return of results in March 2025.
Defense Counsel: Defense attorney Mr. Frank provided an update, highlighting the timeline of key developments, including the impact of the recently uncovered misconduct by CBI analyst Missy Woods. He emphasized that since 2019, expert reports had challenged the DNA evidence used at trial, but the case had faced delays in securing a hearing on these concerns.
Mr. Frank expressed frustration over delays in retesting the DNA evidence, citing bureaucratic inefficiencies. He detailed the timeline of setbacks:
- An agreement was reached in early November 2024 for private DNA testing at BODE Technology.
- Delays ensued as CBI failed to retrieve and transfer the evidence in a timely manner.
- The evidence did not arrive at BODE until December 10, 2024.
- Despite BODE’s promised 45-day turnaround, no testing had begun as of January 7, 2025.
- Communication lapses further exacerbated delays, with the defense ultimately waiving observation to expedite the process.
Mr. Frank argued that every day Mr. Clark remained incarcerated was an injustice, given the strong indications of flawed forensic testimony at trial.
Proposed Court Actions
The defense proposed:
- Setting a status conference for mid-March 2025.
- Establishing a briefing schedule for legal arguments.
- Scheduling a multi-day hearing, given the complexity of issues and the number of expected witnesses.
Judge acknowledged these requests and outlined the necessary steps moving forward:
- The Court of Appeals remanded two issues:
- The claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult a DNA expert.
- Allegations of juror exposure to prejudicial extraneous information.
- The newly raised issue regarding Missy Woods’ misconducts also needed to be addressed.
Judge suggested consolidating these matters into a single hearing and inquired about possible timeframes.
Scheduling Considerations
District Attorney’s Office: The DA’s Office indicated that a three-day hearing would likely be sufficient and proposed a hearing in May or June 2025 to allow adequate preparation. They agreed to submit a response brief by early April 2025, with the defense given time to reply thereafter.
Judge’s Conclusion: The judge acknowledged the necessity of setting firm hearing dates to prevent further delays. The court would coordinate schedules with Judge Salomone as a backup presiding judge if needed.
The court planned to:
- Schedule a status conference in the second week of March 2025.
- Establish a briefing schedule, with the prosecution’s response brief due in April.
- Finalize hearing dates in May or June 2025, ensuring sufficient time for all parties to prepare.
The hearing concluded with an agreement that prompt action was necessary to resolve these issues efficiently, with all parties recognizing the urgency and significance of the case.
The DNA Scandal and Its Impact on Michael Clarke’s Case
As we await the results from the third-party DNA lab, the legal community and the public remain in suspense. The question on everyone’s mind is whether these findings will be made available to the public or remain concealed within legal proceedings. Regardless, I will continue to provide updates, as I will be attending the upcoming hearings and closely monitoring the developments. It will be particularly interesting to see the responses and legal briefs submitted by both the defense and the prosecution, as well as the legal foundations they choose to base their arguments on.
Michael Clarke, unfortunately, is being sent back to the Department of Corrections and is set to endure what is known as “diesel therapy.” His attorney, Adam Frank, insists on bringing him into the courtroom at every opportunity, hoping that some groundbreaking revelation in the DNA scandal will force the District Attorney to concede and overturn the case. The ultimate goal is, of course, for Clarke to walk free. However, the likelihood of this happening remains questionable. While defense attorneys are supposed to fight relentlessly for their clients, it is important to remain realistic about the case’s complexities.
The overwhelming media attention surrounding this case could actually be detrimental to Clarke rather than beneficial. Judges are already showing signs of frustration, particularly with Adam Frank’s approach. Frank, who prides himself on being an experienced and well-educated attorney, appears to be treating his case strategy more like a closing argument in a trial rather than a well-structured defense. His courtroom presence suggests he is more focused on making a name for himself rather than solely advocating for his client. This raises concerns about whether he is the right fit for Clarke’s case or if his primary motivation is to be recognized as the attorney who overturned a major conviction in Colorado due to a DNA scandal. The approach feels reminiscent of a salesman pushing to close the deal of the year rather than a defense attorney prioritizing justice.
While Clarke’s case garners significant media attention, it is crucial to remember the other individuals who remain imprisoned under similar circumstances. Take, for instance, David Hehn, who has been incarcerated for nearly 15 years due to a cold case conviction. At 60 years old, Hehn continues to fight for justice, but his case has largely gone unnoticed by the press. Despite his efforts, including involving the Innocence Project, his case proceeds quietly—perhaps intentionally so. If the media is truly committed to uncovering the full scope of the DNA scandal, they must also acknowledge how these revelations impact other incarcerated men and women. Many of them are growing increasingly frustrated and angry as Clarke’s case dominates headlines while theirs remain in the shadows.
Ultimately, the DNA scandal extends far beyond Clarke’s case. Every case affected by compromised DNA evidence should be treated with equal significance. The legal system must ensure that all individuals impacted by these errors receive a fair and thorough review of their convictions, rather than focusing on only the most high-profile cases. Until then, the fight for justice continues, both inside and outside the courtroom.
Justice Unlocked. 
Leave a comment