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

The latest data from the federal judiciary about backlogs in civil cases raised questions about the accuracy of the information, plus a state Court of Appeals judge acknowledged a courtroom anecdote she shared publicly didn’t reflect what actually happened at oral argument.

Heard on appeal

•  The Denver County Court wouldn’t accept a man’s $10,000 rental assistance check as payment to appeal his eviction, nor would a judge halt the eviction while the payment dispute was resolved. The Colorado Supreme Court stepped in and told the county court to let him pay.

•  The Supreme Court will decide whether a reduction in the number of days a parent can visit with their child amounts to a “restriction” requiring heightened justification, and will also address the scope of trial judges’ authority to completely resentence a defendant after he successfully overturns one of his convictions.

•  An Adams County judge allowed improper testimony at an assault trial, prompting the state’s Court of Appeals to order a new trial.

•  Douglas County prosecutors had no authority to charge a woman for the unauthorized use of her ex-husband’s credit card because no part of the alleged crime occurred in Colorado, the Court of Appeals ruled.

•  Although a Court of Appeals panel found no judicial bias, it wasn’t amused by former Arapahoe County District Court Judge Peter F. Michaelson‘s repeated threats to hold counsel in contempt for pursuing certain theories in a civil trial:

Disabilities in the courtroom

•  A Court of Appeals judge, a Denver trial judge and multiple attorneys with disabilities spoke to lawyers about the ways in which the legal system can sometimes be hostile to them, but they also discussed some relatively minor accommodations that can benefit disabled and non-disabled people alike.

‘Misremembered the details’

•  In the above-mentioned disabilities discussion, Judge Sueanna P. Johnson of the Court of Appeals told an anecdote about a time when a lawyer was seemingly insensitive to her visual impairment:

We had oral argument on a case where a credit union had terms and conditions that was at the bottom of an email, and the person didn’t click on it to opt out of arbitration. So, the argument from the credit union was, well the terms and conditions was conspicuous. They had constructive notice …. And the credit union lawyer came into court with the copy of the email and — not to be glib, but I kind of wanted to be like, “We don’t do exhibits in the appellate court anyway.” But he said, “See? The terms and conditions is conspicuous. You can see it. The email can be read all in one page.”

I said, “Actually, sir, I’m visually impaired. I can’t see that.” I think I took him aback because clearly he hadn’t prepped and researched. Because it was on the website that I’m visually impaired. Instead of saying something like, “Oh I’m sorry, your honor…” I think for the majority of people or something like that, just to acknowledge. Instead, he got flustered and said, “Well, for most people, they can read it. So, that should be fine.”

And I let it go.

•  The case in question was Macasero v. Ent Credit Union. The Court of Appeals eventually sided with the credit union, with Johnson writing a concurring opinion.

•  However, there was a problem with Johnson’s recollection of the 2023 video-recorded oral argument: That exchange never happened.

•  “I misremembered the details of that case, and I did not accurately communicate the exchange between me and the attorney during oral arguments. It was not my intent to mislead the audience, nor malign the attorney I referenced in my presentation,” she said in a statement. “People with visual impairments do not necessarily view electronic information in the same format as sighted individuals, and I wanted to recommend to the audience that understanding a judge’s background might assist counsel with the presentation of their case. I hope my misremembering of the events does not undermine my message of trying to be aware of other people’s circumstances.”

•  Colorado Politics emailed the lawyer Johnson referenced to ask if he had any comment on her public mischaracterization of what he said. The lawyer did not respond.

In federal news

•  Based upon a U.S. Supreme Court decision from last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reinstated a plaintiff’s disability discrimination lawsuit against her employer, concluding she didn’t have to show her workplace took “significant” action against her.

•  A woman tripped, fell and suffered a traumatic brain injury from a floor mat at Denver International Airport. The 10th Circuit dismissed her lawsuit because she hadn’t shown Denver, as opposed to the Transportation Security Administration, was responsible for maintaining the offending mat.

•  The 10th Circuit concluded there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hold a technology contractor liable for fraudulently misrepresenting itself to the city of Fort Collins.

•  A federal judge was “troubled” that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was allegedly preparing to transfer a man to an undisclosed location before his lawyers got involved.

•  Meanwhile, in another immigration case, a judge directed the government to respond to allegations it moved a detained man outside of Colorado in violation of a temporary restraining order.

•  A judge was uncertain how it would work logistically if a federal court were to order convicted Mesa County clerk Tina Peters released on bond while her criminal case is appealed in state court.

•  A Muslim man is entitled to a jury trial over his claim that a corrections officer violated his religious rights by forcing him to shave his beard upon intake, a judge ruled.

•  A federal judge declined to dismiss a woman’s disability-related claims against Elbert County, after sheriff’s deputies allegedly kicked her out of the jail in the middle of the night without transportation to her home nearly nine miles away.

Judicial backlog data

•  The latest data from the federal judiciary show Colorado’s U.S. District Court judges have roughly the same number of motions pending for longer than six months in civil cases as they did in the prior two reporting cycles. However, the publicly reported numbers understated at least one judge’s volume of overdue motions, and two judges provided reasons for their delays that weren’t accurate.

Vacancies and appointments

•  The governor has appointed civil litigator Kimberlee R. Keleher to the Phillips County Court, where she succeeds now-District Court Judge Kimbra L. Killin.

Miscellaneous proceedings

•  A disciplinary panel handed down the first public sanction against a judge since voters amended the constitutional process for discipline last year. In doing so, the panel defended its independent authority to impose consequences.

•  A man was acquitted of sexual assault on a child after his second trial, which the Court of Appeals ordered because a Douglas County judge wrongly barred key evidence the first time around.

On break

•  Court Crawl will take next week off and will return in mid-August.