The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Ned Pace Jr., who was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for two counts of first-degree murder, felony murder, and sexual assault. The court's ruling, announced on October 29, 2026, affects Pace, who has been seeking to overturn his convictions based on claims of newly discovered evidence related to forensic testing.

Pace's case began in 2002 when he was convicted and sentenced. Since then, he has attempted multiple times to seek postconviction relief, but his efforts have consistently been denied. The recent ruling confirms that the evidence he presented does not warrant a new trial or a change in his conviction.

Background

Ned Pace Jr. was convicted in 2002 of multiple serious crimes, including first-degree murder and sexual assault. He received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed by a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2005. Over the years, Pace filed several motions for postconviction relief, but all were unsuccessful. His latest motion, filed in 2025, claimed newly discovered evidence related to forensic work conducted by Yvonne “Missy” Woods, a scientist at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Pace alleged that Woods had committed fraud in her forensic work, which he argued contaminated the DNA evidence used against him during his trial. He requested an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of postconviction counsel, asserting that the new evidence could potentially exonerate him.

The Ruling

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Pace's motion for postconviction relief. The court found that while Pace had adequately alleged newly discovered evidence, it did not meet the necessary criteria for materiality. The court noted, “the evidence was not material and would not probably produce an acquittal because Woods had no involvement in Pace’s case and trial.”

The court explained that the DNA evidence in Pace's case was analyzed by a different CBI analyst, Pamela Schaner, and subsequently by a Denver Police Laboratory Technician, Gergory LaBerge. The court concluded that the record directly refuted Pace's claims regarding Woods's work, stating, “CBI’s involvement in no way contributed to Pace’s conviction.”

Impact

This ruling reinforces the principle that newly discovered evidence must be material to the case at hand to warrant a new trial. In this instance, the court emphasized that the alleged misconduct of Woods did not affect Pace's conviction because she was not involved in his case. This decision may serve as a precedent for future cases where defendants attempt to use claims of forensic misconduct to challenge their convictions.

The ruling also highlights the challenges defendants face when seeking postconviction relief. The court's affirmation of the lower court's decision underscores the importance of presenting compelling and relevant evidence that directly impacts the case. It serves as a reminder that claims must be substantiated with factual allegations rather than speculative assertions.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Pace plans to appeal this decision. However, given the nature of postconviction motions, it is likely that further legal avenues may be explored, depending on any new evidence that may arise.