When President Joe Biden appointed S. Kato Crews as a federal trial judge in January, Crews was no stranger to Colorado’s U.S. District Court. He had served as a magistrate judge on the same court for more than five years.

On Wednesday, Crews told an audience of attorneys at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse that his new job has a different feel, and not just because he now has a vote in the operation of the court.

“It has been a while since I’ve been in my courtroom with anything of substance,” said Crews. “The role is differently isolating.”

Unlike district judges, who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the district court hires magistrate judges for eight-year terms to assist with the workload. While magistrate judges can handle many of the same tasks as their life-tenured counterparts, including presiding over civil cases on their own, they tend to focus on preliminary and administrative matters.

Consequently, they interact more frequently with parties in litigation. Crews deemed them “the face of this federal court. They’re in the trenches with the lawyers.” Now, he said, his job is more oriented toward writing decisions in chambers.

Crews also discussed the district judges’ ability to refer certain matters — such as a motion to dismiss — to magistrate judges for a recommendation. Litigants have the opportunity to object to the recommendation before it is final, but district judges uphold and adopt the vast majority of magistrate judges’ work.

“There’s a different weight that I feel that’s associated with these decisions now,” Crews said. “I don’t have that level above me now. That’s felt different in terms of really recognizing the buck stops with me.”

He explained that his caseload has actually dropped since becoming a district judge, but that may only be temporary. Crews is steadily getting assigned his share of felony criminal cases, which can be time-consuming and take precedence over civil matters.

So far, Crews has presided over two criminal sentencings, both for violations of supervised release. For the first hearing, Crews said he adhered to the standard practice of making the necessary advisements to the defendant, called a colloquy.

“I went through the colloquy, sentenced the individual to eight months, court is out,” Crews said. However, “that didn’t feel right at the end of the day.”

He elaborated that as a magistrate judge, he could order pretrial defendants into custody and it was important that he look the defendant in the eye while detaining them. With his first sentencing as a district judge, he neglected to do so.

“Maybe because I was nervous,” Crews said. “I owe it to these individuals to look them in the eye when I say, ‘I am sentencing you to X number of months in imprisonment.’ I don’t know why I got away from that in my first one because I knew better as a magistrate judge.”

On the subject of custody, Crews recalled he once ordered a defendant released pretrial as a magistrate judge, prompting the prosecution to appeal. The district judge assigned to the case called Crews and said it was a hard decision, but they were going to overrule Crews. Crews thanked the district judge and observed that they, as the one charged with eventually sentencing the defendant, have an even tougher job.

“The district judge expressed to me that no, the magistrate judge’s decision is harder,” Crews described. “Because as a magistrate judge, you’re dealing with people who are innocent until proven guilty. You’re dealing with decisions you have to make quickly.”

He further touched on behavior he has observed from attorneys that he finds troubling. Crews warned against “speaking in absolutes,” pointing to a case he recently decided in which a collection of civic groups mounted a voting rights challenge to Colorado Springs’ municipal election calendar. If he ruled against them, the plaintiffs argued, Crews would be the first judge anywhere to reject a challenge of that sort.

“You read that as a judge and you’re thinking, ‘Wow! I’d be the first one anywhere? I better make sure I slow down and dot my I’s and cross my T’s on this,'” said Crews, adding that his own research revealed the plaintiffs’ assertion was false. “If you’re gonna speak in absolutes, do the research to make sure that’s true.”

He also said he originally wanted to give lawyers the freedom to “do your thing.” He noted younger attorneys or law students typically come to court prepared, potentially because they are nervous. More experienced lawyers, Crews observed, sometimes forget the fundamentals, potentially because they do not try cases that often. In one instance, he said a lawyer rolled his eyes while Crews ruled on an objection.

“I am insisting on more decorum in my courtroom now. It’s not because, ‘Oh, he’s a district judge now and he thinks he has this lofty perch.’ No, it’s because I’ve let lawyers do their thing and it’s not working,” Crews said.

He advised attorneys to assume there will be “full decorum” for every courtroom. Crews also spoke of an unusual spike in legal filings recently that fail to contain critical elements supporting a party’s argument.

“It feels like you’re wanting the court to do your work for you, which is not our role,” he said. “It’s the advocate’s role to advocate, to persuade and to support these positions they’re taking.”

The discussion was sponsored by the Faculty of Federal Advocates.