Welcome to Court Crawl, Colorado Politics’ roundup of news from the third branch of government.

An analysis of all the lawyers who argued before Colorado’s appellate courts last year found the population to be overwhelmingly white and mostly male, plus the state Supreme Court held arguments in two appeals last week.

Who is doing the arguing?

?  The state Supreme Court held 38 oral arguments during 2022 and the Court of Appeals held 312. In all, 742 lawyers delivered arguments to the two courts. Colorado Politics looked at the race and gender of those making the arguments and the main takeaways are: More than 90% of arguing lawyers were white and approximately one-third were women. The demographics were similar to those of lawyers appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, which The Washington Post reported last fall. Here is an excerpt from Colorado Politics’ cover story:

Colorado’s judicial, executive and legislative branches have made diversification of the bench a priority, with the General Assembly authorizing a position responsible for ensuring attorneys from historically-underrepresented communities are applying for judgeships. Now, there is an array of programs intended to boost diversity, something Justice Monica M. Márquez – herself the first Latina member of the Supreme Court – highlighted during testimony to Congress in 2021.

And yet, the demographic disparities are more glaring at times. In 2022, the Court of Appeals held three events through the “Courts in the Community” program, in which the appellate courts host oral arguments outside of downtown Denver and frequently in front of students.

Of the 12 attorneys and six judges involved, all appeared to be white and nine were men. During a spring trip to the STRIVE Prep – RISE school in northeast Denver, where fewer than 10% of students are white, everyone involved in the arguments appeared to be a white man.

A spokesperson for the judicial branch said the Courts in the Community cases are selected based on subject matter, and the parties are responsible for choosing which lawyers argue.

“The bench is more diverse now than perhaps ever, and public appearances like these reflect that and will continue to reflect the growing diversity of the state judiciary,” said deputy public information officer Jon Sarché.

Speaking of oral arguments…

?  The state Supreme Court also came back last week to hear an abbreviated schedule of just two oral arguments. First, the justices pondered whether a new trial needs to happen, possibly to a jury, in a long-running consumer protection lawsuit the Colorado Attorney General’s Office brought against a technical school that deceived its students about academic offerings and outcomes. Upholding the Court of Appeals’ order for a new trial is no minor thing, as the original trial took four weeks to conduct.

?  Second, the justices were skeptical of interpreting the law in a way that would force mortgage lenders to foreclose on homes relatively soon after a homeowner exits bankruptcy, or else forfeit their ability to do so years later – even if there is still money owed on the mortgage.

Other Supreme Court news

?  The court issued a 4-3 decision in a criminal appeal out of Boulder County. The question was whether a man needed to be read his Miranda rights when 1) police told him four times he was under arrest, 2) they said they were taking him to jail, 3) they blocked the entryway to his apartment, but 4) they were relatively calm and accommodating when they entered his apartment. A majority of the court said no, the man was not effectively in custody and did not need to hear his constitutional rights. 

?  The court also held that all decisions of the Colorado State Board of Education involving charter school applications are final and unappealable, not just certain ones.

?  The Supreme Court ordered the Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office to turn over video footage it captured of a defendant’s jailhouse meetings with his attorneys. The defense called the recordings an infringement on attorney-client privilege and a constitutional violation.

?  There are three cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear: First, a case that questions to what degree criminal defendants should benefit when the law changes after trial but while their appeal is pending. Second, what constitutes a driver’s “refusal” to submit to a blood or alcohol test when police suspect them of impaired driving? Finally, the justices will look at whether the terms of colleges’ sexual misconduct policies constitute enforceable contracts.

?  The court modified its recent ruling in a child welfare appeal to emphasize that the mother’s constitutional rights are not being violated and she will have other opportunities to state her case to the trial court.

In federal news

?  Denver officers did not have a permissible reason to search a suspect’s backpack, and evidence of the loaded firearm found inside cannot be used against him, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit decided.

?  Although Congress has authorized federal courts to hear certain serious crimes involving an American Indian defendant in “Indian Country,” a federal judge believed he could not accept a man’s guilty plea because the defense and the prosecution agreed to a lesser offense that Congress didn’t empower courts to hear.

?  A former Dominion Voting Systems executive may sue an Oklahoma podcaster for promoting unsubstantiated theories about him, after a federal judge refused to dismiss the defamation suit against the podcaster.

?  A man seriously injured during the 2020 racial justice protests in Denver has named eight police officers who are allegedly liable for excessive force and retaliation in their response to the demonstrations.

?  A second judge in Colorado, and the first district judge, appears to be incorporating plain English summaries of her written decisions for plaintiffs who are representing themselves in court. Colorado Politics previously reported on the use of “pro se” litigant summaries by U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell, who was the first to adopt the practice here.

Vacancies and appointments

?  The chief justice has appointed Pueblo County District Court Judge Gregory J. Styduhar to be the chief judge of his judicial district. Styduhar, the former Pueblo County Attorney and a 2020 appointee to the bench, will succeed retiring Chief Judge Deborah Eyler.

?  There are three finalists to succeed District Court Judge Jonathan Shamis in his old job as Lake County Court judge: Braden Angel, Katherine Duggin and John Scott.

?  Applications are due by March 26 to succeed Denver County Court Judge Tanya Wheeler, who is leaving her post after three years to join the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. Denver’s mayor will make the appointment.

?  Although the U.S. Senate voted earlier this month to end debate and proceed with the nomination of Gordon P. Gallagher to be a federal trial judge in Colorado, the Senate hasn’t held a confirmation vote yet. And there is no indication of when it will happen.

Miscellaneous proceedings

?  The head of attorney regulation in Colorado has suggested that a member of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, who is also a judge, made untrue statements to the legislature earlier this year.

?  A Woodland Park man pleaded guilty to a felony in federal court in Washington, D.C. for his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.