People who misuse Colorado court livestreams make up less than 1% of all viewers

DENVER — The social media creators who posted unauthorized videos of court proceedings and prompted Colorado Supreme Court Justice Monica Márquez to essentially end livestreaming for three months make up a tiny fraction of all livestream viewers, according to state data.

In 2026, 352,000 people viewed livestreamed state court proceedings on the Colorado Judicial Department’s website, spokeswoman Suzanne Karrer said. Márquez last month cited “hundreds” of unauthorized rebroadcasts of livestreamed court proceedings on monetized social media platforms as the driving reason for her Sept. 15 directive allowing judges to turn off livestreaming despite a state law that requires them to livestream most proceedings.

Márquez’s directive noted she was aware of “hundreds of these posts on YouTube alone, and the number grows each day.” The judicial department last week released a list of reported violations to The Denver Post in response to an open records request. That list, which consists of potential violations flagged by judges, clerks and other judicial insiders, included 120 videos featuring 69 cases, a Post analysis found. Another 258 entries were duplicates, with the same unauthorized videos reported multiple times.

Karrer said the list reflects only cases that employees took the time to self-report and undoubtedly undercounts the number of problem videos. She was personally aware of additional unauthorized social media videos not included on the list, she said.

Even 3,000 unauthorized videos — well above the hundreds Márquez cited — would represent fewer than 1% of the state’s 352,000 livestream viewers. That number of viewers shows that livestreamed court is a valuable resource, said Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.

“I’m sure it is frustrating for judges, but it’s a small number of people who are messing with this system, and the people of Colorado as a whole should hopefully not have to pay a price for that, a price of better access to Colorado’s judicial system,” he said.

In the Sept. 15 directive, Márquez told judges they could stop livestreaming for the next 90 days and issued guidance that ended the presumption that court hearings must be livestreamed and instead made such livestreams the exception rather than the rule. Her directive contradicts state law, which since 2023 has required judges to livestream most criminal court proceedings except under particular circumstances.

Current law allows judges to turn off the public video if they find livestreaming compromises anyone’s safety, a defendant’s right to a fair trial or a victim’s rights — as long as the judge also finds that there is no “less restrictive alternative” to let the public continue to watch remotely while preserving those rights.

Márquez’s directive upended that approach by creating a baseline presumption that court proceedings will not be livestreamed unless judges give “careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks” of livestreaming and then still decide to do so.

Márquez justified setting aside the state law because of the social media videos. Under court rules, rebroadcasting and recording court livestreams is prohibited unless creators receive special permission from the judge presiding over the case. People who violate the rules can be found in contempt of court, which generally can be punished with up to six months in jail. No one has yet been held in contempt for violating the recording rules, Karrer said, noting there are “significant legal and logistical challenges” to doing so.

The vast majority of videos included in the judicial department’s list purport to show so-called “sovereign citizens” — people who believe they exist outside the authority of local, state or federal governments — representing themselves in Colorado court proceedings. The videos carry titles such as “Sovereign Citizen Claims Royalty — Reality? Prison!” or “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN Ran From The Police, And Is Now Facing YEARS IN PRISON!! Pro Se FAIL!!!”

The videos come from accounts with names that include “Law Nerds Unite,” “Courtroom Mysteries” and “Judge Reacts.” The most prolific account on the list, with at least 28 videos featuring Colorado court proceedings, was “Law Talk with Mike,” a YouTube channel with 277,000 subscribers apparently run by Mike Gravlin, a Chicago-based attorney. He did not return requests for comment.

“Put bluntly, our judicial proceedings are being exploited for personal financial gain,” Márquez wrote in the directive.

The judicial department’s efforts to address the problematic videos included reaching out to creators directly, submitting violation reports to YouTube about particular videos, and reaching out to a YouTube government liaison, Karrer said.

“YouTube has just been non-responsive to us,” she said.

Márquez wrote in the September directive that the 90-day suspension of blanket livestreaming would give the judicial department time to consider how to curb the unauthorized social media posts.

Jessica Dotter, executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council, said in a statement Tuesday that the group would like to see livestreaming continue with additional safeguards to better protect people in the courtroom.

“Colorado’s district attorneys believe open, accessible courtrooms are essential to public trust in the justice system, and livestreaming criminal proceedings helps build that trust with our communities,” she said in a statement. “Remote access to courtrooms also provides victims an opportunity to view proceedings without having to be physically present in the same room as the defendant. However, we also see firsthand what happens when that access is abused.”

-------------