 Colorado's judicial branch hides so much information from you. Why? Possibly because you’re predisposed to vote to retain all those judges on the ballot. At least that’s what research shows. Most voters give judges the benefit of the doubt and vote to retain judges.
Unsuspecting voters think if they haven’t heard anything bad about a judge, the judge must be OK. That assumption is incorrect. You're being deceived. Complaints against judges and the discipline history of judges in Colorado are hidden from voters. Even more surprising, the information is also hidden from the performance commissions that review judges. Your election Blue Book is filled with reviews and recommendations about judges. The recommendations come from volunteer government “commissions on judicial performance” in the judicial branch. But those commissions don’t know whether any of the judges they’re evaluating have been disciplined. The commissions don’t know how many complaints have been filed against the judges they’re evaluating. The commissions don’t know the contents of the complaints filed. Why? Because unlike most states, Colorado has confidential – not public – judicial discipline proceedings. We can go on and on about what the judicial performance commissions don’t know about judges. Worse yet, Colorado’s state commission on judicial performance has consistently and repeatedly fought against obtaining more information about judges. All of those reviews in your Blue Book about judges are the product of a system that has actively opposed giving you thorough, responsible and credible reviews. The Judicial Integrity Project has sought legislation requiring the performance commissions to receive more information about judges. But the state performance commission has consistently fought those measures and persuaded gullible legislators that the performance commissions don’t need discipline information or background checks or public comment regarding judges. Really. And all of this is in addition to the fact that Colorado’s Open Records Act doesn’t apply to judges. At least that’s what judges ruled about 20 years ago. So, there’s hardly any information about judges that is publicly available. It’s impossible to objectively review a judge when so much is hidden from view. Colorado has one of the darkest judicial branches in the country. Even worse, we recently learned that the performance commissions are, yet again, violating Colorado law. In a recent Denver Post article it was revealed that the executive director of the performance commissions, Kent Wagner, supervised the performance plan of a judge. Wagner is not a judge. Yet he was supervising a judge. There is no provision in Colorado law that allows a non-judge to supervise a judge. Judges are supposed to independent and trustworthy. But Colorado’s judicial performance system has turned Colorado’s judicial branch into puppet theatre. And if the judge doesn’t do what the performance commissions want the judge to do? The judge might get a nasty, unfavorable recommendation from the commission. That’s because the commissions don’t have an articulable standard by which to determine whether a judge is a good judge or a bad judge. The reviews in the Blue Book tell you a judge meets or does not meet a performance standard. But no standard exists in Colorado. In 2018, a judge claimed he was unfairly targeted by a performance commission when he received an unfavorable review. Indeed, his scores showed that he was rated as one of the better judges in the state. Yet he received an unfavorable recommendation that he did not meet performance standards and was not retained. Phillip Douglass is the former judge’s name. This year, another judge has claimed she’s been unfairly targeted by a performance commission. Her scores are higher than other judges who received favorable recommendations. Yet Judge Tommee Crespin received an unfavorable recommendation claiming she does not meet performance standards. She’s Hispanic and claims racial bias. Because there is no articulable performance standard, her claims of bias could have merit. And she’s the judge Kent Wagner was supervising. Colorado’s judicial performance system is not only misleading voters, it is undermining the integrity of the judiciary. But if a judge here or there receives an unfavorable recommendation, then the state commission claims the whole system works. And unsuspecting voters and legislators believe it. When you vote to retain a judge in Colorado, you’re voting to retain an antiquated, dark, unethical and broken system that much too often protects bad judges at the expense of a good judge or two. You don’t know your judge. But because you’re predisposed to vote to retain judges, the system will continue. Please sign our petition to support a more transparent judiciary, and to support a judicial performance process that is responsible, credible and trustworthy.
0 Comments
 The Colorado Supreme Court thinks judicial retention elections are a joke. The justices know there’s no chance they’ll be voted out.
As this story explains, when current Chief Justice Nathan Coates retires in January, the Court will start setting a specific term length for the role of chief justice. And the court has revealed the next two justices to succeed Coates in the role of chief justice. The first will be Brian Boatright. The second will be Monica Marquez. Both Boatright’s and Marquez’s 10-year judicial terms expire in January 2025. Boatright will be in office when Coates retires in January. But, depending on the term length the justices choose for chief justice, the question should be whether Marquez will be in office when she is to succeed Boatright. The chief justice has been a role held until the justice retires. So, it’s usually been held for many years. Unless the justices select a term that is 4 years or less, it should be questionable whether Marquez is still on the court when it’s her turn to be the chief administrative judge of Colorado’s judicial branch. But the justices obviously aren’t concerned in the slightest that Marquez will still be on the Court when it’s her turn. Why would they be concerned? No appellate court judge has ever lost a retention election in Colorado. Colorado is the only state where a separate judicial performance commission reviews appellate court judges. That means that the district performance commissions – the local commissions – don’t review Colorado’s Supreme Court or Court of Appeals judges. The state commission on judicial performance makes it look like the district commissions review the appellate judges, but the district commissions do not do so. With an insular commission reviewing them – a commission that’s never given an appellate court judge an unfavorable recommendation – the justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court have nothing to worry about. And with all the controversy at the U.S. Supreme Court at present, we should note that when Coates is replaced in January, a Democrat governor will have selected all of Colorado’s Supreme Court justices.  The flurry of judicial vacancies being filled continues. The governor will appoint 4 new judges from the candidates below. You can check our Facebook page for other judicial seats currently being filled.
2 of the judge jobs are in Denver District Court, 1 is an El Paso county court position and the other is a Chaffee county court position. If you know the nominees, or have an opinion, you’re encouraged to email the governor at [email protected] and use a subject line relating the appropriate court. For instance use “2nd Judicial District Court” in the subject line for the Denver positions. The 6 nominees for the 2 district court positions in Denver are: Christine Antoun – currently a lawyer with her own firm where she focuses on criminal defense and family law. She previously worked in civil law in Chicago. She also was a public defender. She received her college degree from George Mason University (Virginia) in 1993 and her law degree from Washington and Lee (Virginia) in 1997. Mark Bailey – an assistant AG where he focuses on consumer protection. He previously worked at Reilly Pozner, a Denver law firm. He received his college degree from Luther College (Iowa) in 2000 and his law degree from the University of Iowa in 2005. Renee Goble – currently a city attorney in Denver. She previously worked at Denver firms Lewis Roca Rothgerber and Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell. She also worked in the US office of international firm DLA Piper. She received her college degree from Stetson University (Florida) in 2002 and her law degree from John Marshall (Illinois) in 2005. Marie Moses – currently a lawyer at Lass Moses Ramp & Cooper, a Denver law firm where she focuses on family law and criminal defense. She previously worked at other private firms including Kelly Garnsey, Hubbell + Lass and Cook, Cooper & Moses. She received her college degree from the University of Virginia in 1992 and her law degree from DU in 1995. Alex Myers – currently a lawyer at Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, a Denver law firm, where he focuses on civil litigation. He received his college degree from CU in 1998 and his law degree from DU in 2004. Demetria Trujillo – currently the managing deputy state public defender in Colorado. She has been in the public defender’s office since 2003. She received her college and law degrees from Northern Arizona University in 1999 and 2002. The 3 nominees for the El Paso county court position are: Yolanda Fennick – currently an attorney with her own practice in Colorado Springs where she focuses on family law. She previously worked for Kane, Donley and Johnson in Colorado Springs and for Pikes Peak Legal Services. She received her college and law degrees from the University of Missouri. Brian Fields – currently an assistant U.S. attorney in Denver. He received his college and law degrees from the University of Pennsylvania in 2006 and 2009. Dennis McGuire – currently a magistrate in El Paso County. Previously, he was a public defender. (Both McGuire and Fields were previously nominated for a county court position in April of this year.) The 3 nominees for the Chaffee county position are: Diana Bull – currently an attorney with her own office where she focuses on criminal defense. She previously worked as a public defender. She received her college degree from Smith College (Massachusetts) in 2005 and her law degree from DU in 2011. Amanda Hunter – currently a county court judge in Custer County. She also is a legal research attorney for the 11th Judicial District (Chaffee, Custer, Fremont and Park counties), and a magistrate in Chaffee County. Previously, she was a public defender. She received her college degree from the University of Iowa in 2002 and her law degree from the University of Nebraska in 2011. Anna Ulrich – currently a part-time county court judge in Saguache County. She also has her own law firm where she focuses on family and civil matters. She previously was an assistant county attorney for Chaffee County, a research attorney for the 12th Judicial District (Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande and Saguache counties), and also an attorney in private firms. She received her college degree from Trinity University (Texas) in 1997 and her law degree from CU in 2001.  Transparency! A judicial nominating commission in Colorado has disclosed the names of all applicants prior to making formal nominations.
Kudos to the 14th Judicial District (Grand, Moffat and Routt counties – Hot Sulphur Springs, Craig and Steamboat Springs)! Below are the names of 16 individuals who have applied to be a district court judge in the district. Unlike the judicial performance commissions, where one state commission makes the rules for all commissions to follow, each nominating commission makes its own rules. The nominating commission for the 14th Judicial District has a rule requiring transparency. Most nominating commissions only make public the names of the ultimate nominees. But the nominating commission for the 14th is making public all applicants so you can comment on them. This is an improvement in the judicial selection process. If you know the applicants, or have an opinion, you’re encouraged to send your comments to the ex officio chair of the commission, Justice Melissa Hart, at [email protected]. Please include 14th Judicial District and the applicant’s name in the subject line. It is interesting to note that if the judicial branch followed the Colorado Constitution and required the candidates to be residents of the judicial district at the time they are selected to be a judge, the list would be reduced to 9. The commission will meet via videoconference on Aug. 28, 2020, to consider the candidates, so be sure to get your comments in before the 28th. Here is some info we were able to put together about the applicants: Jay Cranmer, currently an attorney with his own practice in Craig, where he focuses on family law. He received his college degree from the University of Kansas and his law degree from DU in 2003. Kristina Doran, currently an attorney with Klauzer & Tremaine in Steamboat Springs, where she focuses on criminal law. Previously, she was a prosecutor. She received her college degree from CU in 2005 and her law degree from CU in 2010. Sandra Gardner, a former judge for the Moffat County Court, serving from 2006 to 2020. She resigned from the court on August 1, 2020. She was an attorney in private practice prior to joining the court. She received her college degree from Colorado College in 1985 and her law degree from Emory University (Georgia) in 1991. Steven Jensen, currently a deputy DA in Jefferson County. He has been a deputy DA in that district since 1988 and was a Deputy DA in Pueblo before that. He received his college degree from the University of Southern Colorado in 1981 and his law degree from CU in 1984. Matthew Karzen, currently the DA in the 14th Judicial District Emily Kelley, currently an attorney with Ethos Legal Services in Steamboat Springs, where she focuses on criminal defense, civil litigation and marijuana compliance law. She received her college degree from Colorado College in 2008 and her law degree from DU in 2012. Jonathan Lucero, currently an associate judge in Englewood Municipal Court and a relief judge in Aurora Municipal Court. Prior to that he worked as a magistrate in Denver County Court and also worked in private practice focusing on litigation. He received his college degree from CU in 2004 and his law degree from CU in 2007. Trevor McFee, currently an attorney with a solo practice focusing on criminal law in Denver. Previously he was a public defender. He received his law degree from DU in 2002. Natascha O’Flaherty, currently a trustee for the city of Granby. She became licensed as an attorney in Colorado in 1992. Stephen Peters, currently an attorney in Winter Park, where he focuses on litigation. Previously he was an assistant US Attorney for the district of Colorado. He received his law degree from Duke in 1983. He lives in Fraser. Zachary Phillips, currently an assistant US Attorney in Denver. Previously, he was a deputy DA. He received his college degree from Lake Forest College (Illinois) in 1989 and his law degree from DU in 1999. Casey Quillen, currently a trial lawyer in Steamboat Springs with Sharp, Sherman, & Engle, LLC. Her practice is focused on general litigation, with an emphasis on business disputes, mechanics liens, landlord/tenant, and personal injury. She received her college degree from the University of North Carolina in 2001 and her law degree from CU in 2004. Jennifer Shaler, currently an attorney with Chayet & Danzo, a Denver law firm focusing on Elder law. She received her college degree from the University of Kansas and her law degree from DU. David Wilson, currently an attorney with Sherman & Howard in Denver, where he focuses on arbitration and litigation of business disputes. He received his college degree from the University of Texas in 1983 and his law degree from the University of Texas in 1986. Erin Wilson, currently in solo practice focusing on criminal law in Steamboat Springs. Julia Yates, currently an attorney and freelance photographer in Fort Collins. She received her law degree from the University of Wyoming in 1997.  The judge reviews by the Colorado judicial performance commission are available. The reviews are for the judges up for retention in November.
Consider the recommendations with a grain of salt. No background checks were done. The commissions don’t know whether the judges they’ve reviewed have been disciplined. The commissions don’t have any complaints that have been filed against the judges. The commissions don’t hold public hearings to get comments. The commissions don’t have much historical information about the judges because the executive director for the performance commissions destroys all documents except the final, watered-down report. The commissions (there are 23 commissions - one in each of the 22 judicial districts and a state commission that makes the rules and evaluates appellate judges) simply don’t have enough information to reasonably provide a knowledgeable recommendation about any judge. The commissions receive some documents provided by the judge under review, talk with the judge, and do a little courtroom observation when the judge usually knows they are there. A very limited number of surveys are sent to some chosen people. Those chosen people are the only people who can complete a survey confidentially. Although you can go to the performance commission website and comment on a judge, such comments are not confidential which often discourages someone from commenting. What if someone uses a survey to relate some specific, outrageous instance about a judge? That incident gets covered up by the methodology the performance commissions use. The executive director ensures the judicial performance commission members only see numerical aggregate totals from the surveys. The commission members don’t see any specific instances of conduct that are related on the surveys. And the “performance standard” the commissions claim the judges meet? That standard doesn’t exist. There is no threshold or bar the judges must meet to get a “meets performance standard” recommendation. This was apparent in 2018 when the performance commissions used a scorecard on their website. The scorecard isn’t being used this year. That’s probably because the scorecard showed the problems with the performance commission system. Some judges were getting really low scores yet they were still receiving favorable recommendations. Like we said, there is no performance standard. As in 2018, 2 judges this year received unfavorable recommendations. One of those judges is a part-time county court judge who doesn’t have a law degree. He’s Craig Dolezal in Sedgwick County. The other judge with an unfavorable recommendation is 17th Judicial District Court Judge Tomee Crespin. We’ll have more detail about the reviews at a later date. But you should know they’re available right now – less than three months before the election. As always, all appellate court judges received favorable recommendations. No appellate court judge has ever received an unfavorable recommendation from the state commission on judicial performance. One of the appellate court judges, Craig Welling, has a campaign against his retention. Link below. The other Court of Appeals judge up for retention had a performance review done when he was a district court judge which noted he was 100% biased in favor of the prosecution. He's Ted Tow. The Supreme Court justices up for retention are newbies: Melissa Hart and Carlos Samour. You can read more about the judicial performance system on the “judging judges” page on our website. Due to a lack of transparency in the judicial branch, and these ridiculously superficial performance reviews, voters are ill-equipped to cast a knowledgeable vote when it comes to judges. But when judges are retained, it does reaffirm to the judicial branch that no one cares about the lack of transparency.  These statistics are calculated using the information contained in the annual reports published by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. The Colorado Constitution states that all papers filed with the judicial discipline commission and all proceedings before the commission are confidential. Most states have public judicial discipline proceedings.
 Wanna be a judge? Have a GED? Here’s your chance!
No background check required! You can apply to be a judge in beautiful Dolores. It’s in southwestern Colorado not far from Mesa Verde National Park. It’s a stunning part of the state. You just need to have passed a high school equivalency exam. And thanks to the judicial branch violating the Colorado Constitution, you don’t even need to live there yet. You just have to be ready to move there and live there by the time you get sworn in. It’s not a full-time position. It’s a 20 percent position that pays $33,159 a year. If you get the gig, you have a provisional term of 2 years and then you serve 4-year terms as long as you’re retained by voters. Judges are almost always retained by voters in Colorado. When you’re up for review, the judicial performance commission that will evaluate you still won’t do a background check. So you’re pretty safe. Even if someone filed a complaint at the judicial discipline commission about you the performance commission won’t know it. Heck, you could even be disciplined and it most likely would all be kept from public view. The performance commission won’t have a clue. You’re pretty much in control of what the performance commission sees when you’re reviewed. The only documents the judicial performance commission has to review are the ones you provide them. Oh, and the commission gets a compilation survey report that waters down any bad things someone may have said about you on one or two surveys. So you don’t have to sweat your boss firing you for a bad comment card like so many employees have to fear. Pretty sweet position. LOTS of job protection. You get to send people to jail, make them pay fines and take their property. And you don’t even have to wear a body camera like police officers. The system works to cover up your misconduct. And there’s not a lot of pressure to change the system like there is for the police. Piece of cake. It’s nice work if you can get it. You can apply with this application. You need to get your application in by 4 p.m. on August 7. Or if you want to nominate someone else for the position, you can notify the nominating commission by 4 p.m. on July 31. Good luck!  A district court judge job is currently being filled. It’s in the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield counties).
If you know the candidates, or have an opinion, please send an email to the governor at: [email protected] The nominees, who appeared from the darkness of Colorado’s judicial nominating commission for the 17th Judicial District, are: Amanda DeWick – currently an attorney at Higgins, Hopkins, Mclain & Roswell, LLC, a Denver law firm where she practices civil litigation defense. Previously, she worked for another law firm and in the Denver City Attorney’s Office. She received her college degree from CU in 2001 and her law degree from DU in 2005. Bryon Large – currently an attorney working in Colorado’s Office of Attorney Regulation. He previously worked at two law firms, Kolko & Associates and Joseph Law Firm. He also was a solo practitioner. He received his college degree from the University of New Mexico in 2000 and his law degree from DU in 2005. Emily Lieberman – currently a public defender. She received her college degree from McGill University (Quebec, Canada) in 2003 and her law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (New York City) in 2007.  2 judge jobs are currently being filled. One is in Moffat County Court, where the appointee only needs to have passed a high school equivalency exam, and the other is in Adams County Court, where the appointee must be a licensed lawyer.
If you know the nominees, or have an opinion, you’re encouraged to email the governor at: [email protected] and use the subject line “Moffat County Court Vacancy" or “Adams County Court Vacancy.” The nominees for the Moffat County position are: Mariah C. Poole – currently a legal clerk and assistant at J. Ryan Law, P.C. in Steamboat Springs. She previously worked at another law firm, worked for Advocates Building Peaceful Communities (a nonprofit in Steamboat Springs) and worked at the Routt County Department of Human Services. She received her college degree from CU Denver in 2001 and her law degree from the University of North Dakota in 2019. Ryan L. Hess – currently a deputy sheriff in the Moffat County Sheriff’s office. He’s also a city council member in Craig. He’s currently attending Concord Law School at Purdue Global with an expected graduation date in December 2020. He previously worked for the Colorado State Patrol as a trooper, for Craig Fire and Rescue as a firefighter and for the Moffat County Sheriff’s Office as a jail administrator. He received his college degree from Mesa State College in 2008. Brittany A. Schneider – currently a deputy DA in the 14th Judicial District DA’s Office (Grand, Moffat and Routt counties). She previously served as a public defender in Wyoming, as an adjunct instructor at Eastern Wyoming College, as a lawyer in private practice, and as a deputy DA in Glenwood Springs. She also previously worked as a personal banker with Wells Fargo. She received her college degree from CU Colorado Springs in 2008 and her law degree from the University of Oregon in 2011. The nominees for the Adams County Court position are: Madoche Jean – currently a lawyer at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP in Denver. She previously worked as a lawyer at a Boulder law firm, Caplan & Ernest. She also worked as a deputy DA for the 20th Judicial District (Boulder County). She received her college degree from Washington and Jefferson College (Pennsylvania) in 2005 and her law degree from DU in 2010. Brett Martin – currently a deputy DA in the 17th Judicial District DA’s Office (Adams and Broomfield counties). He previously was a case manager for the Department of Youth Services. He received his college degree from the University of Missouri in 2004 and his law degree from DU in 2010. MaryAnn Vielma – currently a county court judge and district court magistrate in the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield counties). Previously, she was an assistant county attorney for Adams County and a deputy DA in the 17th Judicial District. She received her college degree from the University of Texas, El Paso in 2001 and her law degree from the University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) in 2005.  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. |
Judicial IntegrityA nonpartisan nonprofit seeking to improve the justice system by advocating for laws that increase transparency, enhance accountability and remove conflicts of interest. Archives
October 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed