Welcome to Court Crawl, Colorado Politics’ roundup of news from the third branch of government. The state Supreme Court is resuming its normal calendar of oral arguments and decisions this week, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit decided whether an “enraged” judge compromised the right to a fair trial.

Justices are back in town

•  After taking a hiatus from oral arguments during the summer, the Colorado Supreme Court will resume hearing cases this week. There are some major issues to be addressed during this first round of oral arguments starting at 9 a.m. on Tuesday. The Court Crawl is keeping its eye on the following cases:

People v. Ojeda: This involves a “Batson challenge,” named for the U.S. Supreme Court case barring race-based dismissals of jurors. The justices will review whether the Court of Appeals was correct to find a violation and order a new trial.

People v. Viburg: The Supreme Court decided last year that for felony DUI, prosecutors must prove to a jury that a person had at least three prior (misdemeanor) DUI convictions. The district attorney for Jefferson County is seeking to retry a man for felony DUI under the new standard, and the justices will consider whether that violates double jeopardy.

Rojas v. People: The Supreme Court will consider the “res gestae” doctrine that allows for contextual or even hearsay evidence at trial, but which has its critics.

Thomas v. People: Can someone who is in handcuffs be charged with resisting arrest? The parties are asking the Court to decide when, precisely, someone can be considered “under arrest.”

Breaking the tie

•  The Supreme Court is also considering a case that asks whether a Jefferson County judge was correct to conclude he had no “judicial tie-breaking” authority to decide where a divorced couple’s parents should attend school, after the mother and father could not agree between themselves.

‘The courtroom was en fuego’

•  In 2017, a federal jury handed a $2.45 million verdict to a former ramp agent at Denver International Airport for suffering disability-based discrimination from his employer, SkyWest Airlines. But SkyWest appealed, alleging U.S. District Court Senior Judge Robert E. Blackburn improperly handled the misconduct of SkyWest’s own representatives.

•  First, a paralegal for the regional airline gestured for a witness on the witness stand not to answer a question. Blackburn was not pleased, and told the jury he had “banished” the paralegal. Then, a juror and a SkyWest witness had a conversation in an elevator in violation of the judge’s directive. Blackburn removed both of them from the trial and told the jury about the inappropriate contact.

•  Although the 10th Circuit found on appeal that Blackburn had handled the matter appropriately, SkyWest thought the “enraged” judge may have turned the jury against them. In one of the best lines uttered during oral arguments, an attorney for SkyWest said, “The courtroom was en fuego in that moment.”

Other news from the 10th Circuit

•  A Drug Enforcement Administration agent applied for a warrant for what he thought was a single person growing marijuana illegally. He didn’t realize he was actually monitoring two people — both Chinese — with similar-sounding names and with seemingly no connection to each other. Still, the 10th Circuit upheld the faulty warrant and the conviction.

•  An inmate with a bowel disease asked for prison officials to accommodate his bathroom schedule by giving him access to meals at predictable times. They refused, and instead offered him adult diapers. Although a lower court judge found the diapers to be a reasonable accommodation of his disability, the 10th Circuit decided otherwise and reinstated the lawsuit of Jason Brooks.

•  Brooks told Colorado Politics after the decision: “In prison I never was able to process what was happening fully because the environment forces you to be stoic; suffering was experienced inwardly only. I never showed much emotion going through this because being looked at as weak person in prison can lead to its own set of problems. My recent release has allowed me to process my journey, but it’s still very fresh.”

•  His is the second recent civil rights case from Colorado in which CU law students argued on behalf of the plaintiff. As with Brooks’s appeal, the students won the other case as well.

Qualified immunity denied

•  There were two decisions from the federal district court pertaining to qualified immunity. (To recap: QI is a judicially-created shield against civil liability for government employees, unless they violated someone’s clearly-established legal rights.) In an unusual move, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martínez reclaimed his jurisdiction over an excessive force case, despite a Fort Collins officer’s appeal to the 10th Circuit. The judge denied QI to the officer, and labeled his appeal of that decision “frivolous,” meaning it will continue to trial unless the 10th Circuit says otherwise.

•  A judge also denied QI to Aurora officers who fatally shot a mentally ill man in an apartment. Despite the procedural victory for the man’s surviving family, the judge cautioned that further evidence, like body-worn camera footage, could deal a blow to their case.

Miscellaneous decisions

•  An Arapahoe County sheriff’s deputy allegedly blocked a detainee from filing a grievance twice. The 10th Circuit dismissed the detainee’s lawsuit — because he hadn’t filed a grievance first.

•  A man serving a 60-year sentence for a 1998 murder has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying lower courts haven’t fully considered whether the lead detective on his case knew an informant was lying about key testimony.

•  Colorado is failing to provide federally-mandated services under Medicaid for children who are mentally ill or have behavioral health disorders, a federal lawsuit alleges.

•  There are 32 vacancies statewide across the citizen-led nominating commissions for judges.