1976, May, Pg. 622. On the Soapbox.

• Author: by Christopher R. Brauchli

5 Colo.Law. 622

Colorado Lawyer

1976.

1976, May, Pg. 622.

On the Soapbox

622Vol. 5, No. 5, Pg. 622On the Soapboxby Christopher R. Brauchli"He said it was common when two yahoos discovered such a stone in a field, and were contending which of them should be the proprietor, a third would take the advantage, and carry it away from them both; which my master would needs contend to have some kind of resemblance with our suits at law...."Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels

It is once again incumbent upon me to advise my readers of a development which will soon bring about a substantial change in the role played by lawyer, judge and judge's clerk in Colorado.

Many practitioners know there was recently something of a flap in the Denver District Court when a murder case was dismissed after someone failed to see that it was tried within six months. The question of who the someone was consumed considerable space in one of the daily newspapers and evoked a variety of comments from select judges of the Denver District Court bench. The upshot of all this was that we are now advised that judges, who have heretofore been thought immune therefrom, can be and are expected to refrain from leading lawyers into error.

In the instant case, one of the judges stated that the judge before whom the case was to be tried should have known the six-month period was about to expire even though he wasn't so advised by the prosecution, and the judge should have ensured that the trial was held within the prescribed period. In addition, and herein the new concept whose effects we shall study momentarily, it was stated that a part of the blame for failure to prosecute within six months lay on the judge's clerk as well, since she had a responsibility to find out about the problem involved in lack of speedy trial and impart such information to the judge. To ameliorate the hostility that seemed briefly to threaten the serenity of the judicial sphere, it was announced that a rule change in the District Court was imminent which would bar such sad misunderstandings as were spread upon the rolls of the third estate. That rule will require both the defense and the prosecution, under threat of fine for failure to do so, to notify judges 20 days before the six-month deadline expires. Although it was not so stated, a defendant who is not represented presumably...