Welcome to Court Crawl, Colorado Politics’ roundup of news from the third branch of government. Last week, the civil trial over Denver’s police response to the 2020 racial justice protests continued in federal court, and the Colorado Supreme Court turned its focus to business-related issues.

Ex-city employees take the stand

?  The jury trial over Denver’s handling of racial justice protests following the 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis wrapped up its second week. One former police officer testified that video clips showing officers deploying less-lethal weapons were “one piece of a puzzle of everything that was going on.”

?  Denver’s former independent police monitor, Nick Mitchell, also testified that commanders within the police department criticized officers in the field for not having a clear tactical objective when engaging with protesters.

?  On the other hand, jurors heard that an assertive police response was warranted: “In 40 years, I’ve never seen such violence against police. I never saw such angry people – justified, possibly – but they were attacking officers.” –Patrick Phelan, incident commander of the protests, now retired

?  Follow The Denver Gazette’s continuing coverage of the trial.

Interstate drivers and insurance companies

?  In response to an inquiry from Colorado’s federal court, the state Supreme Court interpreted for the first time whether Colorado law allows individual insurance claims handlers to be held financially liable for denying or delaying payment on a claim. According to the justices, it does not. The court said insurance companies are the only parties that can be sued, to the relief of industry groups.

?  The justices also heard oral arguments on an issue that doesn’t exist any more due to changes in regulations, but did exist circa 2015, when four men were hired to be commercial drivers for a Gypsum-based trucking company. Did Colorado wage law entitle them to overtime pay because they were intrastate – as opposed to interstate – drivers? And, on a related note, did they actually qualify as intrastate drivers?

When is there a reason to know?

?  The Court of Appeals recently decided that an Adams County judge did not have reason to know that the child at the center of a custody proceeding was an “Indian child” under the federal law that protects tribal rights in cases involving American Indian children. This was despite the fact that the judge heard repeatedly from the child’s mother that she may have tribal lineage.

?  The decision puts it at odds with another ruling from the Court of Appeals just a few months ago in favor of a lower threshold for judges having “reason to know” that a child is an Indian child. Fortunately, that divide will get worked out at the Supreme Court, as the justices have agreed to review the “reason to know” standard.

?  The justices have shown an interest lately in cases interpreting the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. In addition to the “reason to know” appeal, the Supreme Court has already decided one ICWA case and heard oral arguments in another within the past year.

Decisions on appeal

?  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found a parole officer and Lakewood police officers could not be held liable for arresting a man on parole, even though they had no probable cause of a crime or parole violation.

?  The City of Boulder is hoping the 10th Circuit will overturn a jury’s verdict – upheld by a lower court judge – that it was liable for its officers’ violation of a man’s constitutional rights.

?  The state’s Court of Appeals determined that the Colorado Department of Revenue is a “victim” who is entitled to restitution by defendants who avoided paying taxes.

?  A prosecutor in Arapahoe County promptly excused three Black people in a row from serving on the jury for a Black defendant’s trial. The Court of Appeals said everything seemed above-board, with no racial discrimination at play.

Vacancies and appointments

?  The governor has appointed El Paso County Attorney Diana K. May to be a district court judge in the Fourth Judicial District, succeeding retiring Judge G. David Miller.

?  Applications are due by March 29 for a vacancy on the Jefferson County Court to succeed retiring Judge Harold Sargent.

?  There are three finalists to succeed William R. Lucero as Colorado’s presiding disciplinary judge for attorney discipline. The Supreme Court will choose between Bryon Large, Carey Markel and Joseph Michaels.

Miscellaneous decisions

?  The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence for a jury to convict a man of burglary when he entered a woman’s motel room after she called him the N-word.

?  In a rare vote, the Alamosa City Council approved a $10,000 expenditure to help recall District Attorney Alonzo Payne.

?  A Douglas County charter school group waited too long to sue the school district for revoking its contract, a federal judge said.

SCOTUS check-in

?  This week, the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary is conducting nomination hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be the next justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

?  In other SCOTUS news, Justice Clarence Thomas is hospitalized with an infection, according to reports from Sunday.