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

The Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments in six cases last week, while a pair of judicial officials were placed on suspension under mysterious circumstances.

Oral argument week

?  In an unusual case submitted by the federal appeals court based in Denver, the justices are set to give their opinion about whether Colorado’s sex offender law, when applied to juveniles, takes account of the factors the U.S. Supreme Court has said are relevant to preventing the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.

?  Evaluating what should happen when a trial judge presides over a case despite having briefly represented the defendant in her prior career, the justices appeared split. On the one hand, they weren’t sure the judge’s participation caused any harm, but, on the other hand, they took offense at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office’s suggestion that defense lawyers knew about the conflict and deliberately didn’t speak up.

?  Even though the attorney general’s office acknowledged that a woman’s convictions are unconstitutional under the current understanding of the law, prosecutors still pressed the Supreme Court to uphold those convictions. The justices again took offense at the office’s tactics.

?  The Supreme Court weighed whether an error should be deemed “obvious” at the time of the original trial or, if the relevant law changes while an appeal is pending, at the time of appeal.

?  With the text of the law and the Supreme Court’s prior precedent potentially in conflict, the justices will have to answer how much time an injured child has to sue if she turns 18 while the statute of limitations is running.

?  A man engaged in a brief, sexualized conversation with a 10-year-old that his lawyer suggested was harassment at most. In reality, though, he is serving a potential life sentence for a sex crime. The justices are considering if there was enough evidence to convict him.

In other Supreme Court news

?  The Supreme Court clarified that judges can’t order a defendant to reveal “all evidence” of an alternate suspect before trial if he plans to use that defense in his case.

? Law firms can’t impose a fixed financial penalty on attorneys who leave and take clients with them, the Supreme Court ruled. Also, the justices fired a warning shot at the Court of Appeals: don’t decide issues the parties don’t ask you to decide, absent a very good reason.

Trust, civility and the judiciary

? Last week, Justice Richard L. Gabriel spoke at a happy hour for young attorneys in Denver’s RINO neighborhood, sponsored in part by the Colorado Judicial Institute. Gabriel, while discussing the judicial advocacy group’s mission, also provided his broader thoughts on the state of civil discourse and of the need for trust in the judiciary.

? “I don’t have to tell all of you, trust in our public institutions is a very big deal in this day and age. All public institutions have fallen under a microscope and are facing challenges to public trust – sometimes fairly and sometimes not,” he said. “A lot of times, as a judicial officer, we can’t speak publicly when the courts are criticized – sometimes unfairly, sometimes fairly – but we can’t speak because of ethics rules.”

? Gabriel added the government “does not function” without a judicial branch that protects individual rights and resolves business disputes. He also lamented that the days when U.S. Supreme Court justices were confirmed with wide bipartisan support – such as Justice John Paul Stevens’ 98-0 confirmation or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s 96-3 vote – are over.

? “We’ve lost the ability to have a civil conversation with each other. CJI reminds us we have that ability,” Gabriel said. “You can disagree with a case or a decision a court reaches and that’s perfectly fine. But we can disagree without being disagreeable.”

? His remarks came weeks after a majority of the state Supreme Court concluded Donald Trump was constitutionally disqualified from the presidential primary ballot, leading to a wave of threats against the justices.

Suspended

 ? It’s unclear what the underlying allegations are, but the longtime presiding judge of the Denver Juvenile Court, D. Brett Woods, has been suspended pending a disciplinary investigation. Emails from juvenile court leadership indicated a lot of “unknowns” about the situation.

?  The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline also placed its executive director, Christopher Gregory, on leave, drawing outrage from those familiar with the commission’s work.

Heard on appeal

 ? A Jefferson County judge accidentally left his livestream running after everyone had left the room, broadcasting his personal thoughts about the defendant’s guilt. But the Court of Appeals said the commentary should not trigger a new trial.

 ?  Prosecutors in Weld and Adams counties removed multiple Hispanic jurors from the jury pool, in one case misrepresenting what a juror said in response to questions. Still, the Court of Appeals found no purposeful racial discrimination.

In federal news

?  For the second time, a federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Pueblo County and several sheriff’s officials for killing a man outside a middle school after he accidently opened a door to the wrong car.

Vacancies and appointments

?  There are two finalists to succeed District Court Judge Brittany A. Schneider in her prior job as a Moffat County Court judge: Nichole Marie Cristee and James Henry Hesson.