In other orders this week, the judge ruled that summoned jurors will only be called for the Holmes case, and they will randomly selected in accordance with the Colorado Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act. He also granted, over the state's objection, a defense request to be provided the names of potential jurors as soon as they are available to the Jury Commissioner.

He denied a request that prospective jurors be sequestered. Jury selection is expected to take weeks.

On the defense request for individual voir dire out of the presence of other prospective jurors, he ordered:

The Court will allow counsel to question prospective jurors individually and outside the presence of other prospective jurors on death qualification issues and publicity issues.

Denial of the defendant's request for individual sequestered voir dire on these topics would risk tainting the entire panel of prospective jurors. On the other hand, allowing the attorneys to ask all of their jury selection questions during individual sequestered voir dire is unnecessary and would be impractical and inefficient.

In a footnote he adds:

On the rare occasion that a prospective juror's answers to the jury questionnaire raise an issue unrelated to death qualifications or publicity which is of a sensitive nature, the Court, in its discretion, may expand the scope of individual sequestered voir dire.

The defense filed a notice that it intends to seek a change of venue. The Colorado rules state that motion should be filed by the arraignment date, unless good cause is shown. The Court responded that it would consider whether the motion The judge responded that he would determine whether good cause exists and if the motion should be granted after it is filed. He expects to have a hearing on the issue.

The Court's advisement to Holmes about his insanity plea, and acceptance of the plea is here. In it he explains the trial process:

A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity includes the plea of not guilty. Further, the issues raised by a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity are treated as an affirmative defense and are tried at the same proceeding and before the same trier of fact as the charges to which the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is offered as a defense.

Every person is presumed to be sane; but, once any evidence of insanity is introduced, the prosecution has the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. If the trier of fact finds you not guilty by reason of insanity, the Court shall commit you to the custody of the Department of Human Services until such time as you are found eligible for release. A defendant is "ineligible for release" if he is suffering from a mental disease or defect which is likely to cause him to be dangerous to himself, to others, or to the community, in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he is permitted to remain at liberty.