does judicial tinkering inspire confidence?

A lawyer invests $224,000 in getting a judge off the bench. Judge wins retention election. Lawyer’s firm then has a case before the judge. How do you think that works out?
 
Well, the law firm moves to recuse the judge. Judge denies the motion. Then the judge strikes the law firm’s expert witness’ testimony. And the jury doesn’t do what the law firm wants.
 
Law firm appeals. A senior judge is specifically assigned to hear the appeal. The senior judge writes a published opinion siding with the trial judge.
 
The trial judge at issue is Adams County District Court Judge Edward Moss. The retired "senior" judge who was assigned to hear the case at the Colorado Court of Appeals is former Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez.
 
The law firm is Frank Azar’s firm. Azar contributed to a campaign against the retention of Judge Moss. It’s all detailed in this article in Colorado Politics.
 
Normally, a case at the Colorado Court of Appeals is heard by a panel of 3 full-time judges. Instead, a senior judge was hand-selected to hear this particular case with two full-time judges.
 
Senior judges do not go through retention elections. Senior judges are hired via a contract with the state court administrator's office. In other words, the state court administrator selects which judges get to be senior judges. The people don't select such judges. Senior judges are not bound by the same ethical requirements as full-time judges.
 
There is no specific finding that must be made to assign a senior judge to a case. The parties in a case are not provided with the opportunity to agree or object to a senior judge. A senior judge is simply assigned to a case by the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court with the help of the state court administrator.
 
So why was a senior judge assigned to this particular case? We’re left to wonder why.
 
The article also states that:

---

"During the retention election, the 17th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously determined Moss met performance standards, noting that he was ‘a well-respected leader in the Colorado court system when it comes to judicial ethics and ethics education.’ Moss, the former mayor of Westminster, is a member of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee and became a judge in 2004. The judge prevailed in his election with just under two-thirds support from voters."

---

But the performance commission that evaluated Moss had no idea how many complaints had been filed against Moss or whether Moss had ever been disciplined by the discipline commission. That's because judicial discipline proceedings are confidential in Colorado.
 
For all we know, many complaints regarding Moss could have been filed with the discipline commission. And those complaints could show that Moss is biased in favor of insurance companies as was alleged in the campaign against Moss' retention. It’s possible that Moss agreed to discipline for such bias and it was all kept from public view and the view of the performance commission.
 
The performance commissions have no specific standard that a judge must meet. The performance commissions simply state that a judge meets or does not meet a performance standard that doesn’t exist. And they issue such a finding without even knowing whether any complaints were filed against the judge and without knowing whether the judge has been disciplined.
 
Why is so much information about judges hidden from public view?
 
The question remains: Was a fair trial had in this case?
 
We do know that a senior judge who was specifically assigned to the case at the Court of Appeals declared that a fair trial was had.
 
Do you agree?
 
Why couldn’t Colorado’s judicial branch let a panel of 3 full-time judges issue the appellate opinion? Wouldn’t you have had more faith in such an opinion? Why did the chief justice and the state court administrator decide to tinker with this case?
 
If the case is appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, do you think the chief justice should hear the case? The chief justice decided to put Senior Judge Martinez on the Court of Appeals’ panel. Do you think there is an appearance of impropriety if the chief justice hears this case if it goes to Colorado’s Supreme Court?
 
When the trial judge struck the expert witness testimony, was that an act of retribution by the trial judge against the lawyer who paid to get the judge off of the bench?
 
Was the senior judge specifically assigned to uphold the retribution?
 
Is this a case of judicial bullying where the judges are telling the lawyers to watch out?
 
This case leaves us with many more questions than answers.
 
And it’s Colorado’s judicial system that creates most of the questions.
 
Does the system leave you doubting whether justice was had?
 
Does the scenario presented by this case make you question your trust in Colorado’s judicial system?
 
Don’t you wish that Colorado had a judicial system that was more focused on systematically ensuring judicial integrity?
 
Please sign our petition to support judicial reform in Colorado.