Members of the Colorado Supreme Court fielded detailed questions from an audience of law students on Thursday, with one justice asked to explain why he reprimanded an attorney for using “strident” language during oral argument.

“I’m gonna call that out when I see it. I think sometimes judges are afraid to call that out and I really wanted to get to the very difficult legal issues in that case without all the adjectives and adverbs,” responded Justice Richard L. Gabriel.

The Supreme Court traveled to the University of Colorado’s law school to hear arguments in two appeals as part of its long-running “Courts in the Community” program. Although the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals typically appear at high schools, the justices arranged visits at Colorado Mesa University last spring and the University of Denver several years ago.

“When I worked at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, it was always a big deal if one of your cases was selected for what we internally, informally called the ‘Colorado Supreme Court Road Show’,” said Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez. “Because you got to argue a real, live case but you got to do it in a community setting.”

Gabriel, when asked to explain his reason for policing one attorney’s emotional appeal, cited his prior advocacy for civil discourse.

“I’m not at all suggesting that was happening here, but I’ve seen cases where a lawyer is playing to the media or some other purpose and that’s not what we’re about,” he said.

“There’s a big difference between how you wanna present when you’re making arguments at the trial level, particularly to a jury, and arguments on appeal,” added Justice William W. Hood III, a former trial judge. Emotional arguments “induce the kind of reaction that Justice Gabriel talked about. You start to recoil a little bit because the idea is that you’re just trying to manipulate me rather than really persuade me with the logic of your argument.”

Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. interjected that some people can be effective in both trial and appellate courtrooms, “but I don’t know there are a lot of lawyers that can.”

“Or they don’t know how to code switch,” offered Hood.

Multiple students asked about the methods the court uses to interpret laws. Márquez said statutory history — how lawmakers change the words of a law over time — can be helpful in interpreting legislators’ intent.

“It gets way more dicey, from my perspective, to lean into what somebody said in a particular hearing and try to draw inferences about the legislative intent from that,” she elaborated.

“Finding the big picture — what they were intending — is one thing,” added Gabriel, whereas “picking out one good quote” from a debate is not helpful.

Similarly, another questioner wondered why judges do not rely more frequently on interpretations of international law when weighing legal issues domestically.

“In general, the cases that tend to come to us involve state law and so we just rarely, if ever, have the opportunity to consider issues of international law,” responded Márquez.

“I prefer not to be the first one ever to have thought of something,” said Gabriel. If there is an issue the Supreme Court has never confronted before, “I’ll look at anything to just see what the analysis is to help me.”

Márquez added that looking at other states’ laws is fair game when the statutes are similar to Colorado’s.

The lawyers who argued the two appeals also fielded inquiries. In one case, the state’s Court of Appeals overturned a defendant’s identity theft conviction, prompting the government to ask for Supreme Court review.

“It was a published (precedent-setting) case, so we thought that was enough to ask the Supreme Court to tell us what the statute means,” explained First Assistant Attorney General Wendy J. Ritz.

Public defender Kira L. Suyeishi, who argued opposite Ritz, said her work, in contrast to that of trial attorneys, largely takes place in front of a computer, reading and researching.

“For me, a very small part of my year is doing oral argument. It’s a tiny sliver,” said Suyeishi. “I do meet with clients in prison and some are in the community. But our job is very academic.”

In the other case, an animal rights group advocated for its ability to petition Colorado’s courts for the release of five elephants from the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The opposing parties used the question and answer session to continue arguing the facts of the case and criticize their opponent. However, both sides felt similarly when asked if they get nervous arguing their cases.

“Yeah, the nerves never go away,” replied attorney Jake Davis.

“Yes,” agreed John Suthers, Colorado’s former attorney general who has argued repeatedly in front of the state and U.S. supreme courts.