The Colorado Supreme Court traveled to Pueblo on Thursday where it heard oral arguments in two real cases and fielded questions from students, with a focus on the experiences of the three female justices in contrast with the male majority.

“I used to be a trial court judge and every now and then, I had that uncomfortable but fascinating experience of feeling like someone was perhaps underestimating me,” said Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter, responding to a student’s question about whether the lawyers who appear before the Supreme Court ever display less respect to the female members.

If differential treatment occurred, added Berkenkotter, the newest justice on the court, “you can’t decide a case based on that. You can feel that and think that’s unfortunate. But at the end of the day, you can’t say, ‘I didn’t like how you’re perceiving me so I’m gonna jam up your case because I didn’t like how that felt.'”

Justice Monica M. Márquez, the longest-serving member currently on the court, said she had not experienced poor treatment while on the bench hearing cases. However, she described entering meetings only to encounter reactions of “I thought they were sending a justice.”

“I’ve had many of those experiences,” she said.

“The lawyers up here arguing know we have a lot of power. So, I think we all get equal deference,” said Justice Melissa Hart. At the same time, she remembered applying for a Supreme Court seat and hearing someone speculate she would not be selected because there would be “too many” women on the court.

“And the person said it completely without any embarrassment at all,” she said.

Some of the male justices backed up the descriptions from their colleagues. Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. recalled hearing attorneys and other judges discuss lawyers who exhibited certain personality traits, but appraising the men differently than the women.

Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright alluded to a pattern in recent judicial retention elections in which three of the past five judges to be voted out were women, even though women comprise only 44% of state judges.

“I will say I think the women judges are critiqued more harshly than the men, to be honest with you,” said Boatright, with Berkenkotter nodding in agreement. “I think we’re evolving on that, but I think that’s a reality.”

The Supreme Court’s trip to Central High School is part of the long-running “Courts in the Community” program. The state’s appellate courts travel outside of their courthouse in downtown Denver in the spring and fall to hear arguments in schools, then have lunch with students.

Brian Domina, a 24-year social studies teacher, said Courts in the Community had never come to Central High during his time there. The event was mainly for the “American Problems/Criminology” class, which teaches students about law.

“We really wanted to vet the kids and make sure they were the ones who really wanted to be in there and be a part of this,” Domina said, noting the students who ate with the justices had to first submit a two-page essay.

Domina joined the students in questioning the members of the court, asking if Colorado’s highest court was “tied to” the U.S. Supreme Court.

“No!” responded Hart emphatically.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel elaborated that Colorado cases can be appealed to the nation’s highest court — most recently in the high-profile litigation over Donald Trump’s eligibility to remain on Colorado’s presidential primary ballot. But, he said, “they’re probably not going to be interested in something very unique to Colorado and will let us be the last word.”

The justices spoke about their schedule, in which the court hears oral arguments monthly between September and June. Members also meet every Thursday in conference to discuss cases and requests to hear appeals.

“I think a lot of people underestimate how much time is spent on the stuff that doesn’t involve wearing the black robe,” said Hart, referring to committee meetings, public speaking engagements and administrative work the justices also perform.

In addition, students spoke to the lawyers who argued the two cases — the first being a civil appeal involving a landlord’s responsibility to preserve evidence of meth exposure and the other a criminal appeal of a defendant’s child sexual exploitation convictions. The question that generated the most discussion from the attorneys: Have you ever represented a client you believed was guilty?

“Most of the time you don’t pay attention to guilt or innocence. You look to see whether the prosecution has the evidence to prove the case,” said Adam M. Tucker, a defense lawyer who argued the criminal appeal. “A lot of times when my clients come to me, they’re not bad people. … The punishment may define their life going forward, but the conduct doesn’t necessarily define who they are going forward.”

“From the prosecution side,” added his opponent in the case, Senior Assistant Attorney General Trina K. Kissel, “I can sometimes feel uncomfortable about how a case came out. I might feel sympathy toward defendants, certainly, and the life experiences that led them to where they are.”

The attorneys who argued the civil appeal, while clarifying their clients are not found “guilty,” similarly agreed their role was to provide the best representation possible, notwithstanding their personal discomfort.

“I’ve absolutely represented a client who I thought was probably wrong,” said Christopher O. Murray. “I’ve done it. I think almost every lawyer at some point is going to have to do it.”

Of the six attorneys present for the civil appeal, only one, Kylie M. Schmidt, was female. She fielded a student’s question about the hardships women face in the law.

“I came even though I wasn’t arguing to show that we don’t have to have all guys here in front of the Supreme Court,” said Schmidt. “I think it can be hard to walk into a room of all men and not be intimidated. I think it can be hard to feel like you belong. I’ve been mistaken for a court reporter. I’ve been mistaken for a paralegal before. It takes time to build that confidence.”

Afterward, Hart said the court is conscious of the impact its decisions have on the state and the trip to Pueblo was useful for reminding the justices they remain part of the community.

“We very much hope that by seeing what we do and seeing that it’s possible, that young people will see themselves in these roles,” she said. “One of the really important realities is you can’t imagine yourself doing something if you’ve never seen it done.”