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

The Colorado Supreme Court held several oral arguments last month, including at a venue outside of its downtown Denver courthouse, plus the U.S. District Court is considering whether individual judges should be allowed to set their own standards of professional conduct that can be used to discipline lawyers.

Oral arguments

•  The Supreme Court considered whether five elephants confined at a Colorado Springs zoo are entitled to a hearing on their release using the centuries-old concept of “habeas corpus.” The justices, like their counterparts in other states, seemed doubtful for the basic reason that elephants aren’t humans.

•  The Supreme Court appeared to believe it’s OK for judges to resentence someone solely to probation after they’ve already served the prison portion of a prison-plus-probation sentence — even though it would functionally still be a prison-plus-probation sentence that the court deemed unlawful years ago.

•  The justices pondered whether to give a Denver judge another shot at evaluating the attorney-client confidentiality of documents in an insurance dispute after she admitted during the appeal that she got it wrong.

•  Although Colorado’s “three-strikes” law has roots in the eugenics movement and has undergone multiple changes since its enactment nearly 100 years ago, the Supreme Court appears unlikely to rule that defendants serving lengthy sentences are entitled to a resentencing for convictions decades in the past.

•  The Supreme Court was sympathetic to a defendant’s reading of state law that “personal identifying information” pertains only to humans, not business entities.

Field trip to Boulder

•  As part of its long-running “Courts in the Community” program, the Supreme Court traveled to the University of Colorado’s law school in Boulder to hear multiple arguments and to take questions from the students in attendance. Among the topics addressed were the tone of lawyers’ arguments, the role international law plays in the court’s legal interpretations and how to examine the legislature’s intent when changing a statute.

•  “Finding the big picture — what they were intending — is one thing,” said Justice Richard L. Gabriel, whereas “picking out one good quote” from a legislative debate is not helpful.

Other Supreme Court news

•  The Supreme Court clarified that tenants do have the right to a jury trial in evictions cases that hinge on a factual dispute over the reason for eviction.

•  The justices will answer whether the state’s child neglect law requires more than speculation that a newborn will someday be negatively affected by their parent’s drug use. The court will also address two ongoing cases involving the state’s “three strikes” law and the more severe punishments municipalities have imposed for crimes that are identical to state offenses.

•  Justice Melissa Hart spoke at the University of Colorado about access-to-justice issues, including a behind-the-scenes look at the Supreme Court’s thinking in authorizing a new occupation for licensed legal paraprofessionals to aid family law litigants.

Heard on appeal

•  The Court of Appeals decided a man needed to be resentenced because the judge in his case agreed he was biased against the defendant.

•  Even though a defendant prevailed at the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals upheld his vehicular homicide conviction because police relied on a good-faith interpretation of the law before the Supreme Court’s clarification.

•  One Court of Appeals judge suggested the legislature should change the law to prevent government defendants from waiting an unreasonable period of time to tell plaintiffs they are actually suing the wrong public entity, thus tanking the lawsuit.

•  Misconduct by two prosecutors combined with a Douglas County judge’s incorrect evidentiary ruling required a woman’s vehicular homicide conviction to be overturned, the Court of Appeals decided.

•  The Court of Appeals found flaws with crime victim restitution orders in two cases.

•  A Douglas County judge let a biased juror serve on a man’s sex assault trial, prompting the Court of Appeals to order new proceedings.

•  A man will receive a new murder trial in Adams County because an unreliable eyewitness identification was used as evidence the first time.

In federal news

•  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed a judge was within his rights to dismiss an incarcerated man’s lawsuit for making death threats against a jail deputy and a federal magistrate judge in his court filings.

•  The 10th Circuit concluded it couldn’t immediately consider the appeal of a private immigrant detention center operator because the topic at hand was too closely connected with the ultimate issue for trial.

•  The 10th Circuit reiterated there is a high standard to hold medical providers liable for a constitutional violation, rather than negligence, due to the “reality that doctors constantly deal with probabilities and make medical decisions in the face of risk.”

•  Three federal judges eliminated some of the claims being brought by multiple plaintiffs whose rights were allegedly violated during the police response to 2020 protests in downtown Denver.

New rules for lawyer misconduct?

•  Colorado’s U.S. District Court already has the ability to censure, disbar or suspend lawyers for violating the rules of professional conduct. But in the latest set of proposed rules changes, one unidentified district judge has suggested judges should be allowed to lay out additional standards of conduct for their courtrooms that would count as grounds for discipline. Some lawyers were wary of the idea.

•  “Over the years there has been much discussion about judicial officers having individual practice standards. On the one hand, this makes sense, as judges are more than robes behind a bench; they’re persons who, like all of us, receive information in a unique way. Practice standards are a great way of letting litigants know how best to communicate to a particular judge,” said attorney Bradley A. Levin. “At the same time, disparate standards present distinct challenges to practitioners and their staff, particularly when there are several of them covering multiple subjects. I would be concerned that those challenges would be compounded if attorneys are required to adhere to differing standards of conduct that go beyond the uniform Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly if they would be subject to discipline for their violation.”

Vacancies and appointments

•  Denver’s mayor has appointed Magistrate Brian C. Williamson to succeed Judge James Zobel on the Denver County Court.

Miscellaneous proceedings

•  Three semi-retired senior judges have not filed any financial disclosure forms for years, despite repeated reminders from the judicial branch to do so.

•  The Colorado Libertarian Party is suing Secretary of State Jena Griswold over the inadvertent disclosure of election equipment passwords on a spreadsheet.

•  Magistrates and lawyers discussed the problem of children’s access to guns, and what the law is doing in response.

•  Following a lengthy bench trial, a Denver District Court judge will now decide whether to block the merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons.

•  A Littleton man who admitted on social media to “storm(ing) the Senate” on Jan. 6, 2021 received a sentence of three years in prison.