Court Business

• Publication year: 2013
• Pages: 103
• Citation: Vol. 42 No. 1 Pg. 103

42 Colo.Law. 103 Court Business Vol. 42 No. 1 [Page 103] Colorado Bar Journal January, 2013

By Nancy E. Rice, Justice Colorado Supreme Court.

From the Courts

Visit the related court’s website for complete text of rule changes or proposed rule changes issued by the court. Each court’s website includes corresponding forms, which are not printed in Court Business, and versions with highlights of revisions (deletions and additions). Material printed in Court Business appears as submitted by the court and has not been edited by the staff of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court Rules Committee

Corrective Order #2 to Rule Change 2011(19) Amended and Adopted

Time Calculation Changes in the Colorado Rules of Procedure

This rule change includes only sections where corrections have been made to Rule Change 2011(19), which was released on December 14, 2011.

Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 4. Warrant Or Summons Upon Felony Complaint

(IV) Return. At least one day prior to the return day, the person to whom a summons has been delivered for service shall make return thereof to the county court before whom the summons is returnable. At the request of the prosecuting attorney, made while a complaint is pending, a summons returned unserved, or a duplicate thereof, may be delivered by the county judge to any peace officer or other authorized person for service.

Rule 32.1. Death Penalty Sentencing Hearing

(I) Any material submitted under seal pursuant to this paragraph (B) that the judge finds to be privileged from disclosure to the prosecution prior to the sentencing hearing shall be provided forthwith to the prosecution if the defendant is convicted of a class 1 felony.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, en banc, November 2, 2012, effective immediately.

Colorado Judicial Department Colorado Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Board Opinions

Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board (CJEAB) Advisory Opinion 2012-07 Finalized and Effective October 29, 2012

ISSUE PRESENTED:

The requesting judge is a District Court Judge whose case assignment includes a criminal docket. The judge’s daughter recently became engaged to a Deputy District Attorney (DDA) who works in the District Attorney’s office in the judge’s district. Throughout his daughter’s relationship with the DDA, the judge has recused himself from the DDA’s cases, and has disclosed the relationship on the record in all matters in which other attorneys from the same DA’s office has entered an appearance. The judge asks the following questions:

(1) Whether he is disqualified under Rule 2.11 from presiding over all criminal matters involving the DA’s office during the engagement and/or after the marriage.

(2) Whether he may serve as the weekly "duty judge" responsible for reviewing and approving arrest and search warrants submitted by law enforcement after consultation with the DA’s office, and conducting probable cause reviews for individuals arrested over the weekend, which typically involves reviewing a warrantless arrest affidavit prepared by a law enforcement officer.

CONCLUSION:

Both during the engagement and after the marriage, the judge must recuse from cases in which the Deputy District Attorney engaged to the judge’s daughter enters an appearance or otherwise participates in the preparation or presentation of the case. The judge is not disqualified from all cases involving the District Attorney’s office, provided his future son-in-law has no personal involvement with the case and has no supervisory authority over the attorneys involved in the case. The judge may ethically serve as the weekly duty judge, provided his future son-in-law is not the attorney responsible for preparing or reviewing warrants and affidavits submitted for the judge’s approval.

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that "A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."

Rule 1.2 requires judges to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, "...