Lake County DA says digital evidence, competency cases and rising violent crime strain office; requests additional funding

Heidi McCollum, Fifth Judicial District Attorney, told the Lake County Board of County Commissioners during a work session that her office needs additional funding to keep up with growing demands from digital evidence, competency cases and a rising violent-crime docket. McCollum said she will submit a clarified budget request to county finance staff after working with county managers.

McCollum said the Fifth Judicial District's caseload and operational pressures are driven not only by total case counts but by the complexity of certain case types and new statutory requirements. "We paid out to victims in the Fifth Judicial District more money than the entire state of Vermont," McCollum said, describing the scope of the crime victim compensation program her office manages. She also warned that digital evidence review is a major new driver of workload: in one felony case she sampled, staff had to review "196 hours of body worn camera in one case," which she said amounts to "40 hours a week doing nothing but watching body worn camera for 4 and a half weeks in one case."

Why it matters: McCollum told commissioners that these shifts have budget implications because digital discovery, appellate work and specialty courts require sustained attorney time, investigators and technology. She said competency court and competency diversion programs have expanded: competency court has "over 75 participants" and requires regular staffing; appeals have grown from a handful to "over 25 open appeals," creating substantial appellate workload. McCollum said the district currently has six open first-degree murder cases, three of them from Lake County.

Details of the request and the office's needs: McCollum presented staffing and office breakdowns for the Fifth Judicial District, which covers Eagle, Lake, Summit and Clear Creek counties and operates five courthouses. She said the district employs about 46 staff total, with Lake County normally home to a five-person office and Eagle the largest office with 17 people. The DA's office currently leases eight housing units that enable recruitment and retention of attorneys and interns (3 in Eagle, 2 in Lake, 3 in Summit) and reported nine staff currently housed in those units.

On discovery and technology, McCollum said body-worn cameras, jail phone calls and cell-phone extractions produce large volumes of material that must be reviewed by prosecutors and investigators. She described the difficulty of finding admissible clips and the time required to transcribe or re-listen to noisy recordings. McCollum and Wendy Rolls, the office's financial manager, said one budget item under consideration is paid access to Axon Justice (evidence.com) or similar platforms to search and index audio/video and to transcribe jail calls; Rolls said the software would not remove attorney review but could reduce review time by making key segments searchable.

On statutory drivers and statewide context, McCollum referenced HB217 (the state's use-of-force reporting requirement) and other legislative changes that have increased the office's obligations, including public posting of certain reports when charges against officers are not filed. She noted a statewide conversation about discovery burdens and pointed commissioners to a recent opinion piece by leaders at the Colorado District Attorney Council and the public defenders' office describing statewide strain on electronic discovery systems.

Budget process and follow-up: McCollum said the office had inadvertently returned much of its 2023 fund balance to counties (about $2.4 million), creating a shortfall when 2024 expenses were later considered. She asked for clarity on whether counties approve the DA's full budget or only an obligation calculation; county staff signaled they usually act on the obligation calculation. McCollum said the office is working with Eagle County finance manager Jill and county finance directors (including a Will and Dylan referenced in the discussion) to refine and re-file a request. A commissioner present told McCollum they had "penciled in the $4.36 that you asked"; McCollum confirmed she would follow up with a clarified submission.

What was discussion versus decision: Commissioners asked questions about timelines and fiscal options; there was no formal vote on the DA's request during the session. McCollum and county finance staff agreed to continue working on a revised budget submission and to confirm what portion of the request would be presented as the county obligation versus the office's full expense budget.