CLE Legal Connection http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39930 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/gjF8-ux2iP8/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 11/13/2018 On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court issued three published opinions. Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:41:03 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-11-13-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court issued three published opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SC515.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Janis</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SC997.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Friend v. People</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA130.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Sease</em></a></p> <p>Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.</p> <p>Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2018/13ECA711.13.18.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">available here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/gjF8-ux2iP8" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-11-13-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-11-13-2018/ 2018-11-13 16:41 +00:00 2018-11-13 09:41 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39928 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/mBgv8x4maQA/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/9/2018 On Friday, November 9, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and two unpublished opinions. Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:18:13 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-9-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Friday, November 9, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and two unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-2123.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Espinoza-Talamantes</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-5068.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Johnson v. Allbaugh</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/mBgv8x4maQA" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-9-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-9-2018/ 2018-11-12 15:18 +00:00 2018-11-12 08:18 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39926 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/9YiPMqKyKvw/ Case Law child abuse Colorado Court of Appeals criminal law sexual assault Colorado Court of Appeals: Child Sexual Assault Victim Cannot Legally Consent to Use of Force During Assault The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>People v. Hodge</em> on Thursday, November 1, 2018. Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:52:03 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-child-sexual-assault-victim-cannot-legally-consent-to-use-of-force-during-assault/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2018/18CA0710-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Hodge</em></a> on Thursday, November 1, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Criminal Law—Sexual Assault—Child—Use of Force Aggravator—Consent.</em></p> <p>The prosecution charged Hodge with three counts of sexual assault on a child and alleged that he used force against the victim to accomplish the sexual contact. The use of force aggravator made each charge a class 3 felony under C.R.S. § 18-3-405(1) and (2)(a). The district court dismissed the force aggravators based on its finding that because the 14-year-old victim had consented to the force used (restraints), the prosecution did not establish probable cause for the use of force at the preliminary hearing.</p> <p>On appeal, the prosecution argued that the district court erred in dismissing the use of force aggravators. A child sexual assault victim cannot legally consent to the use of force during an unlawful sexual act. Therefore, the district court erred in finding that the victim’s agreement to the use of restraints did not constitute the use of force.</p> <p>The order dismissing the use of force aggravator was reversed, and the case was remanded for reinstatement of the original charges as class 3 felony sexual assault on a child.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/9YiPMqKyKvw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-child-sexual-assault-victim-cannot-legally-consent-to-use-of-force-during-assault/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-child-sexual-assault-victim-cannot-legally-consent-to-use-of-force-during-assault/ 2018-11-09 15:52 +00:00 2018-11-09 08:52 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39924 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/eJ2-6wilrFk/ Case Law child support Colorado Court of Appeals domestic relations law family law parenting time Colorado Court of Appeals: When Voluntary Parenting Time Change Occurs, District Court May Order Retroactive Child Support The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>In re Marriage of Garrett and Heine</em> on Thursday, November 1, 2018. Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:49:30 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-when-voluntary-parenting-time-change-occurs-district-court-may-order-retroactive-child-support/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2018/17CA1219-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>In re Marriage of Garrett and Heine</em></a> on Thursday, November 1, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Family Law</em><em>—</em><em>Post-Dissolution</em><em>—</em><em>Modification of Child Support</em><em>—</em><em>Retroactive Child Support</em><em>—</em><em>Parenting Time.</em></p> <p>In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, both parents moved to modify parenting time. The district court entered a week on, week off parenting schedule and modified child support accordingly. In June 2015 the parents mutually agreed to modify this schedule so father would be the primary residential parent and mother would have parenting time every other weekend and one evening per week. Accordingly, father began paying mother a reduced amount of child support and then moved to modify child support in July 2016. The parties again agreed to change parenting time in February 2017, with mother the primary residential parent of one child and father the primary residential parent of the other child. The district court found that mother owed retroactive child support based on the substantial changes in parenting time beginning in June 2015, and it offset that amount against father’s current child support obligation.</p> <p>On appeal, mother contended that the district court erred when it imputed income to her without finding she was voluntarily underemployed. If a parent is voluntarily underemployed, child support must be calculated based on the parent’s income. Here, the court did not explicitly find that mother was voluntarily underemployed and shirking her child support obligation and the record does not support such findings. Nor did the court make any findings concerning the reasonableness of mother’s efforts to secure a full-time position at her previous salary. Thus, the case was remanded to the district court for additional findings, reconsideration of mother’s income, and recalculation of child support accordingly.</p> <p>Mother further contended that the district court erred in applying C.R.S. § 14-10-122(5) and ordering her to pay retroactive child support back to June 2015. When a voluntary change in parenting time occurs, a court may retroactively enter a child support order against either parent without regard to the parent’s status as obligor or obligee under the existing child support order. However, the record is not clear on whether the district court imposed the retroactive child support obligation as an act of discretion or imposed it under the mistaken view that it was required to do so. On remand, the district court must set forth the factors it considers in determining whether to impose such an obligation.</p> <p>The order retroactively establishing a child support obligation for mother was affirmed. The portion of the order determining mother’s income was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/eJ2-6wilrFk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-when-voluntary-parenting-time-change-occurs-district-court-may-order-retroactive-child-support/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-when-voluntary-parenting-time-change-occurs-district-court-may-order-retroactive-child-support/ 2018-11-09 15:49 +00:00 2018-11-09 08:49 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39921 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/rMbare7toTQ/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/8/2018 On Thursday, November 8, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions. Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:45:28 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-8-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, November 8, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1250.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Lomax v. Raemisch</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-6035.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Jones v. Jones</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-2031.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Ombe v. State of New Mexico</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-2064.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Reyes-Espinoza</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3164.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Adkins v. Koduri</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/rMbare7toTQ" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-8-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-8-2018/ 2018-11-09 15:45 +00:00 2018-11-09 08:45 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39917 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/6IBqoydM6Yw/ Job Satisfaction career satisfaction economics happiness inspiration job search job transition legal profession Fireflies and Algorithms We’ve been looking at workfare — the legislated link between jobs and the social safety net. An article published last week — &#8220;Fireflies And Algorithms — The Coming Explosion Of Companies&#8220;[1] brought the specter of workfare to the legal profession. Reading it, my life flashed before my eyes, beginning with one particular memory: me, a newly-hired associate, [&#8230;] Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:04:08 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/fireflies-and-algorithms/#respond Kevin Rhodes <div class="pf-content"><p><a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/fireflies-and-algorithms/fireflies/" rel="attachment wp-att-39918"><img class="size-full wp-image-39918 aligncenter" src="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/fireflies.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="212" srcset="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/fireflies.jpg 315w, https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/fireflies-150x101.jpg 150w, https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/fireflies-300x202.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 315px) 100vw, 315px" /></a></p> <p>We’ve been looking at workfare — the legislated link between jobs and the social safety net. An article published last week — &#8220;<a href="https://medium.com/@opencorporates/fireflies-and-algorithms-the-coming-explosion-of-companies-9d53cdb8738f">Fireflies And Algorithms — The Coming Explosion Of Companies</a>&#8220;<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[1]</a> brought the specter of workfare to the legal profession.</p> <p>Reading it, my life flashed before my eyes, beginning with one particular memory: me, a newly-hired associate, resplendent in my three-piece gray pinstripe suit, joining the 4:30 queue at the Secretary of State’s office, clutching hot-off-the-word-processor Articles of Incorporation and a firm check for the filing fee, fretting whether I’d get my copy time-stamped by closing time. We always <em>had</em> to file <em>today</em>, for reasons I don’t remember.</p> <p>Entity choice and creation spanned transactional practice: corporate, securities, mergers and acquisitions, franchising, tax, intellectual property, real property, commercial leasing… The practice enjoyed its glory days when LLCs were invented, and when a raft of new entity hybrids followed… well, that was an embarrassment of riches.</p> <p>It was a big deal to set up a new entity and get it just right — make sure the correct ABC acquired the correct XYZ, draw the whole thing up in x’s and o’s, and finance it with somebody else’s money. To do all that required strategic alliances with brokers, planners, agents, promoters, accountants, investment bankers, financiers… Important people initiated the process, and there was a sense of substantiality and permanence about it, with overtones of mahogany and leather, brandy and cigars. These were entities that would create and engage whole communities of real people doing real jobs to deliver real goods and services to real consumers. Dissolving an entity was an equally big deal, requiring somber evaluation and critical reluctance, not to mention more time-stamped paperwork.</p> <p>&#8220;Fireflies and Algorithms&#8221; sweeps it all away — whoosh! just like that!— and describes its replacement: an inhuman world of here-and-gone entities created and dissolved without the intent of all those important people or all that help from all those people in the law and allied businesses. (How many jobs are we talking about, I wonder — tens, maybe hundreds of thousands?) The new entities will do to choice of entity practice what automated trading did to the stock market, as described in <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2227498">this UCLA Law Review article</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Modern finance is becoming an industry in which the main players are no longer entirely human. Instead, the key players are now cyborgs: part machine, part human. Modern finance is transforming into what this Article calls cyborg finance.</p></blockquote> <p>In that “cyborg finance” world,</p> <blockquote><p>[The “enhanced velocity” of automated, algorithmic trading] has shortened the timeline of finance from days to hours, to minutes, to seconds, to nanoseconds. The accelerated velocity means not only faster trade executions but also faster investment turnovers. “At the end of World War II, the average holding period for a stock was four years. By 2000, it was eight months. By 2008, it was two months. And by 2011 it was twenty-two seconds.</p></blockquote> <p>&#8220;Fireflies and Algorithms&#8221; says the business entity world is in for the same dynamic, and therefore we can expect:</p> <blockquote><p>[W]hat we’re calling ‘firefly companies’ — the blink-and-you-miss-it scenario brought about by ultra-short-life companies, combined with registers that remove records once a company has been dissolved, meaning that effectively they are invisible.</p></blockquote> <p>Firefly companies are formed by algorithms, not by human initiative. Each is created for a single transaction — one contract, one sale, one span of ownership. They’re peer-reviewed, digitally secure, self-executing, self-policing, and trans-jurisdictional — all for free or minimal cost. And all of that is memorialized not in SOS or SEC filings but in blockchain.</p> <p>“So what does all this mean?” the article asks:</p> <blockquote><p>How do we make sense of a world where companies — which are, remember, artificial legal constructs created out of thin air to have legal personality — can come into existence for brief periods of time, like fireflies in the night, perform or collaborate on an act, and then disappear? Where there are perhaps not 300 million companies, but 1 billion, or 10 billion?</p></blockquote> <p>Think about it. And then — if it hasn’t happened yet — watch your life flash before your eyes.</p> <p>Or if not your life, at least your job. Consider, for example, <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf">a widely-cited 2013 study</a> that predicted 57% of U.S. jobs could be lost to automation. Even if that prediction is only half true, that’s still a lot of jobs. And consider <a href="https://hackernoon.com/20-top-lawyers-were-beaten-by-legal-ai-here-are-their-surprising-responses-5dafdf25554d">a recent LawGeex contest</a>, in which artificial intelligence absolutely smoked an elite group of transactional lawyers:</p> <blockquote><p>In a landmark study, 20 top US corporate lawyers with decades of experience in corporate law and contract review were pitted against an AI. Their task was to spot issues in five Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), which are a contractual basis for most business deals.</p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.lawgeex.com/AIvsLawyer/">The study</a>, carried out with leading legal academics and experts, saw the LawGeex AI achieve an average 94% accuracy rate, higher than the lawyers who achieved an average rate of 85%. It took the lawyers an average of 92 minutes to complete the NDA issue spotting, compared to 26 seconds for the LawGeex AI. The longest time taken by a lawyer to complete the test was 156 minutes, and the shortest time was 51 minutes.</p> <p>These developments significantly expand the pool of people potentially needing help through bad times. Currently, that means workfare. But how can you have workfare if technology is wiping out jobs?</p> <p><em>More on that next time.</em></p> <hr /> <p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1]</a> The article was published by <a href="https://opencorporates.com/info/about">OpenCorporates</a>, which according to its website is “the world&#8217;s largest open database of the corporate world and winner of the Open Data Business Award.”</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div style="border: 1px solid #999999; background-color: #dadada;"> <p><em><a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/07/can-money-buy-happiness/photo-kevin-head-shot-thumbnail/" rel="attachment wp-att-37377"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-37377" src="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Photo-Kevin-Head-Shot-thumbnail.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="187" srcset="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Photo-Kevin-Head-Shot-thumbnail.jpg 150w, https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Photo-Kevin-Head-Shot-thumbnail-120x150.jpg 120w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /></a></em></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-rhodes-b171117/">Kevin Rhodes</a> studies and writes about economics in an effort to understand the world his kids are growing up in, which is also the world he’s growing old in. You might enjoy his latest LinkedIn Pulse article &#8220;<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fame-monster-rockstars-rockstar-entrepreneurs-kevin-rhodes/">The Fame Monster: Rockstars And Rockstar Entrepreneurs</a>.&#8221;</p> </div> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/6IBqoydM6Yw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/fireflies-and-algorithms/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/fireflies-and-algorithms/ 2018-11-08 16:04 +00:00 2018-11-08 09:04 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39915 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/gPgOseZxhhA/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals criminal law immigration law ineffective assistance of counsel postconviction proceeding removal Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant Facing Probation Revocation has Statutory Right to Effective Counsel The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>People v. Timoshchuk</em> on Thursday, November 1, 2018. Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:56:31 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-defendant-facing-probation-revocation-has-statutory-right-to-effective-counsel/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2018/17CA0259-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Timoshchuk</em></a> on Thursday, November 1, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Criminal Procedure</em><em>—</em><em>Postconviction Remedies</em><em>—</em><em>Immigration</em><em>—</em><em>Probation</em><em>—</em><em>Right to Counsel.</em></p> <p>Timoshchuk was a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He was charged with forgery. As part of a plea agreement, Timoshchuk pleaded guilty to forgery, pleaded guilty to DUI in a separate case, and admitted violating his probation in a prior case. Timoshchuk was sentenced to probation in all three cases. Timoshchuk’s probation officer filed a complaint in district court alleging that Timoshchuk had violated the two conditions of his probation. Timoshchuk then entered into an agreement resolving all four cases: he admitted to violating probation in his prior cases and pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in his newest case. The district court revoked Timoshchuk’s probation and resentenced him on the forgery charge to three years in the custody of the Department of Corrections concurrent with his other sentences.</p> <p>The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Timoshchuk due to his convictions involving a controlled substance and an aggravated felony. Because Timoshchuk conceded the charges against him, the immigration court found Timoshchuk removable as charged and later denied his request for asylum. Timoshchuk then filed a Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion alleging he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without a hearing.</p> <p>On appeal, Timoshchuk argued that the court erred in denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion without a hearing. He contended that his probation revocation counsel failed to sufficiently investigate and advise him of the specific immigration consequences of his plea. The court of appeals held that a probationer facing revocation proceedings has a statutory right to counsel, and thus a right to effective assistance of counsel. Here, it was clear that Timoshchuk could be subject to removal for his aggravated felony conviction, and his probation revocation counsel should have advised him with certainty that his admission and resulting sentence could subject him to removal. Further, Timoshchuk became ineligible for asylum when he was sentenced to three years in prison for the forgery conviction, and his counsel should have advised him with certainty of the immigration consequences of his admission. If Timoshchuk did not receive an advisement from his counsel of the specific immigration consequences of his plea, he may be entitled to relief. Therefore, Timoshchuk alleged sufficient facts to warrant a hearing on the adequacy of the advice he received.</p> <p>The order was reversed and the case was remanded.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of</em> <a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/gPgOseZxhhA" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-defendant-facing-probation-revocation-has-statutory-right-to-effective-counsel/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-defendant-facing-probation-revocation-has-statutory-right-to-effective-counsel/ 2018-11-08 15:56 +00:00 2018-11-08 08:56 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39913 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/O0hV15qTevg/ Case Law abuse of discretion Colorado Court of Appeals criminal law juror misconduct jury trial Colorado Court of Appeals: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion by Declining to Reveal Juror’s Contact Information Absent Evidence of Misconduct The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>People v. Bohl</em> on Thursday, November 1, 2018. Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:50:49 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-trial-court-did-not-abuse-discretion-by-declining-to-reveal-jurors-contact-information-absent-evidence-of-misconduct/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2018/16CA0644-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Bohl</em></a> on Thursday, November 1, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Criminal Procedure—Jury Contact Information—Jury Misconduct.</em></p> <p>A jury convicted Bohl of one count of first degree murder for killing his girlfriend. After the verdict, a deputy district attorney who was not involved in prosecuting the case sent a text message to Mrs. Hillesheim, the wife of the jury foreman. Mrs. Hillesheim and the deputy district attorney knew each other, and the deputy district attorney asked her if Mr. Hillesheim would provide feedback on the trial and the prosecutors’ performance during the case. Mrs. Hillesheim informed the deputy district attorney that Mr. Hillesheim had researched various scientific items that were presented during the trial. Following this communication, the People filed a Notice of Juror Contact. In response, Bohl’s counsel filed a motion for a new trial, and alternatively, Bohl requested that the court hold a hearing on the incident and release the jurors’ contact information. Following a hearing at which the Hillesheims testified, the trial court determined that no jury misconduct had occurred and any extraneous information that Mr. Hillesheim obtained was not relevant to a key issue at trial. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court did not address Bohl’s request for juror information, but denied Bohl’s motion, and later sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.</p> <p>On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for juror contact information because it deprived him of the opportunity to gather evidence to support his juror misconduct claim. Here, the trial court’s factual and credibility determinations were supported by the record, and given the speculative evidence of juror misconduct, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bohl access to juror contact information.</p> <p>The order was affirmed.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/O0hV15qTevg" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-trial-court-did-not-abuse-discretion-by-declining-to-reveal-jurors-contact-information-absent-evidence-of-misconduct/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-trial-court-did-not-abuse-discretion-by-declining-to-reveal-jurors-contact-information-absent-evidence-of-misconduct/ 2018-11-08 15:50 +00:00 2018-11-08 08:50 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39911 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/sTLdUJpHt20/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 11/8/2018 On Thursday, November 8, 2018, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 23 unpublished opinions. Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:33:12 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-announcement-sheet-11-8-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, November 8, 2018, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 23 unpublished opinions.</p> <p>Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">available here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/sTLdUJpHt20" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-announcement-sheet-11-8-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-announcement-sheet-11-8-2018/ 2018-11-08 15:33 +00:00 2018-11-08 08:33 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39909 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/1wLVhs2noUc/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/7/2018 On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and one unpublished opinion. Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:29:42 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-7-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and one unpublished opinion.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-6097.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Leslie v. Bryant</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/1wLVhs2noUc" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-7-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-7-2018/ 2018-11-08 15:29 +00:00 2018-11-08 08:29 -07:00