Video: KDVR

The family that started a fire storm of controversy over their flammable water in rural Weld County has settled their claims with one oil company and is no longer speaking publicly about the contamination, Heidi Hemmat reports.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Mark Brennan and Kim Ikeler interact during Brennan’s disciplinary hearing last week in Denver.

Video: Law Week Colorado

By Matt Masich, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — The disciplinary hearing for Centennial attorney Mark E. Brennan became physical during closing arguments on the third and final day, when Brennan shoved and then glowered at Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel prosecutor Kim Ikeler.
Ikeler’s boss, John Gleason, said Monday that his office is considering filing with the Denver District Attorney’s office a criminal complaint against Brennan over the incident, which was caught on camera by Law Week Colorado.
Gleason’s office on Friday asked to review Law Week’s unedited videotape, but Managing Editor Cara DeGette denied the request. DeGette said relevant portions of the edited tape would ultimately be posted online for all to see.
That video accompanies this story.
The altercation occurred 6:20 p.m. Thursday when Brennan was speaking.
Here’s what followed:
* Ikeler got up from his chair and approached the podium to make an objection. On the first day of the trial, Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero instructed Ikeler not to do this.
* Brennan, who had several times expressed his contempt for Ikeler, was pointing with his arm outstretched to his side when Ikeler approached him from behind. Brennan’s arm effectively barred Ikeler from walking any further. Brennan’s arm and Ikeler’s chest then came into contact, after which it appeared that Brennan pushed Ikeler back.
* Brennan next turned to face Ikeler, glaring intently at him for several seconds, then pointing his finger and shaking his head.
* Lucero called for order. “This is not trial by combat,” he said.
* Brennan then told the hearing panel that Ikeler had deliberately provoked him by violating Lucero’s order not to approach the podium when making objections. Brennan also referred to Ikeler as a “piece of sh-t.”
After the altercation, OARC staff in the audience summoned security personnel, who monitored the remainder of the trial.
In an e-mail to Law Week, Brennan gave his side of the story: “I did not shove Ikeler, but put out my hand as I faced the bench and he approached from behind, against which he pushed unsuccessfully. He assaulted me, in violation of repeated court orders that he stay away from me. He did so to provoke me. I then turned after he backed off, and told him to get away from me.”
The altercation and subsequent release of video calls to mind last year’s kicking incident by then-Rep. Douglas Bruce of a then-Rocky Mountain News photographer. In both cases, the videotape produced conflicting interpretations of what occurred.
Brennan is representing himself against allegations that his behavior in a 2006 civil trial in Colorado’s federal court violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Gleason’s office asked a three-judge disciplinary panel that Brennan be suspended as a result.
While Gleason said OARC is considering filing the DA’s complaint against Brennan for allegedly shoving Ikeler, he said his office isn’t planning to bring any more attorney misconduct complaints because of it. Brennan’s e-mail to Law Week did not indicate whether he will pursue assault charges against Ikeler.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

In this video, Mark Brennan’s characterization of a witness’ “mousy presence” and his assertion that the hearing was “a witch trial” draws successive contempt citations from Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero. Video: Law Week Colorado.

“I have never been in a courtroom where an attorney laughs out loud at a witness’ testimony.”
— Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero

By Matt Masich, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — Colorado attorney Mark E. Brennan did himself no favors Tuesday during a disciplinary hearing to decide his professional fate, when he alternately referred to opposing council as a “worm,” and implied the father of one witness was a Klansman.
Midway through Day 1 of the three-day hearing, Brennan had already racked up two contempt citations — at $250 a piece — in a courtroom drama that could help establish the line between acceptable courtroom bluster and misconduct.
Brennan, in solo practice in Centennial, is accused of violating the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in confrontational behavior throughout a 2006 federal jury trial, Cadorna v. City and County of Denver – as detailed in the current issue of Law Week Colorado.
During opening arguments at the disciplinary hearing, prosecutor Kim Ikeler of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel said that Brennan intentionally flaunted Cadorna trial Judge Robert Blackburn’s instructions as a plan to prejudice the jury in his favor. This, along with Brennan’s allegedly abusive behavior to court staff and opposing counsel, violated two of the state rules governing lawyers, he said. One forbids “conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal,” and another forbids “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
On Tuesday, Brennan, representing himself, engaged in the same behavior attorney regulation cited as misconduct in its complaint: He repeatedly interrupted Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero by speaking over him, and expressing displeasure with the proceeding.
Here are a few indecorous highlights from the opening arguments and examination of the first witness:
* While Brennan was speaking at the podium, opposing counsel Ikeler approached the podium to raise an objection. Brennan protested loudly, waving his arm at Ikeler to shoo him away and telling Judge Lucero, “I’m not going to have this worm standing next to me.”
* Ikeler later called as his first witness Ginny Kramer, the courtroom deputy during the Cadorna trial. During questioning, she testified the Cadorna trial lasted seven days instead of four because of Brennan’s bad behavior. At this, Brennan gave a loud, “Ha!” Lucero disapproved, saying, “I have never been in a courtroom where an attorney laughs out loud at a witness’ testimony.”
* Kramer also testified that Brennan openly defied the judge in the Cadorna trial. In his cross-examination of the southern-accented Kramer, Brennan claimed that she personally didn’t like him. He then asked her, “Was your daddy a member of the Klan in Alabama?” Lucero sustained an objection.
* Later, when Brennan asked if Kramer had ever been represented by a lawyer and she replied she had, during a divorce, Brennan asked if she and her husband were fighting over who got the “hound dog and shotgun.”
Far from winning over Judge Lucero and the rest of the three-person panel that will decide the outcome of the hearing, Brennan’s behavior seemed to alienate everyone in the courtroom. By mid-afternoon, he was slapped with two contempt citations.
In the end, the panel must decide whether Brennan’s confrontational style in the Cadorna case was “conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal,” or if it was an unintended consequence of his lawyering style.
The disciplinary proceedings continue today and tomorrow.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Rossi
LAW WEEK COLORADO
Editor’s Note: Statewide trial reporter Peter Rossi rounds up today’s court news.

Iraq Veteran Arraigned On Rape Charges
Spc. Robert Hull Marko, a 21-year-old Iraq War veteran based in Fort Carson, had an arraignment hearing Monday. Marko is charged with raping and murdering Judi Lawrence. He did not enter a guilty plea and the case was continued until Sept. 21.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/rape-58417-murder-carson.html

Appeals Court Grants Chambers 24-Hour Stay
The Colorado Court of Appeals granted Arapahoe County District Attorney Carol Chambers a 24-hour stay Tuesday to comply with the District Court order that requires her to appoint a special prosecutor in the alleged rape of Julie Stene, 9News reports.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=119461&catid=339

Jury Deliberates Greeley Man’s Faith
Greeley man John Paul Romero awaits a jury’s deliberations on murder charges after prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their case Tuesday. Romero went to trial in April, but the jury was hung. Three other men have been convicted in connection with the robbery and murder.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090715/NEWS/907149954/1005/NONE&parentprofile=1001

DA Agrees Defendant Is Insane
Colorado Springs Deputy District Attorney Brien Cecil agreed Tuesday with defense attorney Edward Farry that Sean Alden Fitzgerald was insane when he stabbed his father to death in front of his mom Nov. 20. The DA will offer no evidence arguing against insanity on a one-day non-jury trial Sept. 17.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/plea-58479-agree-surgeon.html

Homeless Man Strikes Deal In Killing
Michael Bateman, a 43-year-old homeless man, will plead guilty to felony manslaughter in the death of 46-year-old Todd Pierce, who was also homeless. The plea agreement could result in a maximum of nine years in prison. Bateman is accused of beating the other homeless man to death last year.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/07/14/071509_3a_Bateman_plea_deal.html

Have a trial you want to tell us about? Do you have questions about our future trial coverage? Send your queries to Peter Rossi at prossi@circuitmedia.com.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Matt Masich, STATE BILL COLORADO
DENVER — Thanks to the most important Colorado Supreme Court opinion released this year so far, state lawmakers are now free to increase state revenue by more than $2 billion by repealing tax credits and exemptions most had considered untouchable under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR.
On March 16, the Supreme Court ruled on Mesa County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Colorado, a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the 2007 mill-levy freeze, which increased the amount local school districts contributed to school funding. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, found that the freeze was constitutional, which was significant because it meant local school districts could continue collecting an additional $100-plus million a year. But potentially more significant were the few paragraphs of the 45-page majority opinion that outlined “workable parameters” and noted two exceptions to TABOR’s tax limits.
The state’s attorney in the case, Mark Grueskin of Isaacson Rosenbaum, praised Mullarkey’s opinion.
“The court has provided some clarity, finally, about what some of the ridiculously vague terms in TABOR mean,” Grueskin said.
Richard Westfall of Hale Friesen, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the opinion allows the state legislature to increase tax revenue without a vote of the people, something he argued violated the law.

The duty to fund schools
Passed in 1992 by Colorado voters, TABOR was designed as a check on the growth of government. Its “ratchet-down” provision limits the state and local governments’ revenue to the same amount raised the previous year (adjusted for population growth and inflation). TABOR also requires that voters approve any new tax or policy that causes a net revenue increase.
Since then, nearly all of the state’s school districts — 174 out of 178 — passed “de-Brucing” laws (a reference to TABOR-author Douglas Bruce) that waived the restrictions on the money the district can raise through taxes.
School districts are funded partly by local mill-levies that generate property tax, and partly by state money. Since 1992, the ratchet-down effect has meant that as property values have increased, the mill-levy rates have decreased to avoid breaking the TABOR limits — even though de-Brucing would seem to make this unnecessary.
In 2007, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 199, widely known as the mill-levy freeze, to take advantage of the local de-Brucing laws. The bill allows those districts to keep mill-levy rates constant even if property values increase.
In 2008, the mill-levy freeze allowed local school districts to raise $117.8 million more than they otherwise could have, freeing up that much state money for other education programs.
The mill-levy freeze drew the ire of pro-TABOR groups. In the Mesa lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed the local de-Brucing ballot initiatives didn’t directly ask voters to approve an increase in property tax revenue. Because of this, they argued, the mill-levy freeze violated TABOR and should be stopped.
Last year, Denver District Judge Christine Habas ruled for the plaintiffs, but in March, the majority of the Supreme Court found otherwise in a 5-1-1 decision.
“SB 07-199 simply applied these broad based waivers passed by school districts according to their language and we find that none of plaintiff’s assertions establish that a constitutional provision was violated in doing so,” Mullarkey wrote.
Justice Nathan Coats weighed in with a separate concurrence, saying the local waiver elections were unnecessary and that the mill-levy freeze is constitutional anyway because the district’s duty to fund schools supersedes TABOR’s revenue limits.
Justice Allison Eid was alone in her dissent. In a scathing opinion, she wrote that “the majority deprives the people of their right to vote on SB 07-199 and the $117 million tax increase it permits.” If the waiver elections were enough to justify the mill-levy freeze, Eid wrote, “one must wonder why SB 07-199 was necessary in the first place.”

Interpreting TABOR
The majority opinion didn’t stop at addressing the constitutionality of the mill-levy freeze; it went further, giving its interpretation of the part of TABOR that forbids “a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain” without a popular vote.
This interpretation approved two ways for lawmakers to change tax policy to increase revenue without a vote: If there the increase has a “de minimis impact on a district’s revenues,” or if the increase doesn’t go above TABOR’s ratchet-down limit. But because voters passed Referendum C in 2005, the ratchet-down limit is suspended until 2011. This means that any “tax policy change” is fair game.
According to the Office of Legislative Legal Services, the state’s roughly $2 billion of tax credits and tax exemptions fall under the tax policy heading. This means that, in light of the Mesa decision, any or all of them can be repealed. In the 2009 legislative session, the cigarette sales tax exemption and a capital gains tax credit were repealed, which will bring the state $50 million more per year.
With the state budget shortfall for fiscal year 2010-11 projected at $850 million, it seems likely that more credits and exemptions will wind up on the legislative chopping block.
The Mesa decision will also prevent ballot initiative proponents from interpreting initiatives after they are voted on, said John Mill, attorney with Sherman & Howard and counsel for the Colorado Department of Education, a co-defendant in the suit. This is a result of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s arguments that voters didn’t intend the de-Brucing initiatives to approve property tax increases.
“The Supreme Court was very clear that what matters is the actual language of the ballot initiative itself, not extraneous evidence about what people were told about it,” Mill said.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Matt Masich, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — Even the most cool-headed lawyers lose their temper sometimes. But the next time you are at the end of your rope with opposing counsel or a judge, remember that anything you say can be used against you by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
Last month, Denver attorney Thomas Blumenthal agreed to a conditional admission of misconduct for an impressive series of incidents in 2007 and 2008 in which he was less than cordial with other lawyers and courthouse employees.
Blumenthal admitted to violating four of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.
He was given a two-month suspension, effective June 9, which will be waived if he keeps out of trouble during a three-year probation; completes a one-day ethics school; regularly attends a designated bipolar support group and anger management class; meets with a psychotherapist every two weeks for the first year of his suspension; and meets with other designated doctors every six weeks for the first year of his suspension.
Blumenthal, a criminal defense attorney with a downtown practice, did not return a phone message seeking comment, but here are a few of the incidents involving him, filed in the OARC complaint:
● After a disagreement with a Jefferson County deputy district attorney, Blumenthal said “f— you” and called him “motherf—er,” and later added, “One day I will get the drop on you and make you pay.” [Violated Colo. RPC 4.4(a), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)]
● When Blumenthal started yelling at an Arapahoe County deputy district attorney, she called in a sheriff’s deputy. When the deputy asked him what happened, Blumenthal responded by calling the deputy DA a crude reference to a woman’s anatomy. When the deputy took exception to the remark, Blumenthal amended his statement, saying the crude reference to a woman’s anatomy was also “bloody.” [Violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d), 8.4(h)]
● At the Boulder County Courthouse, a security deputy took Blumenthal’s pen when it set off the metal detector. Blumenthal grew upset when the deputy opened the pen and said to him, “f— you” and “kiss my a–.”
● At the Denver District Courthouse, Blumenthal became upset that he had to go through security, used “a number of swear words” with the security deputies and threw his belt in the direction of one of the supervisors. When Blumenthal later spoke with the supervisor, he told him, “I didn’t throw my best at you; don’t you think I could hit you if I had tried? I was a pitcher.”
● In Adams County, a deputy district attorney refused to show the prosecution’s notes to Blumenthal. Angered, Blumenthal said (according to the original complaint): “You want to play f—ing games with me? Is that what you want? You want to play games? You’re a government employee, you know that? You work for the government. Someday you’re going to get out of the sandlot, and if you play games like this, you’re going to get killed.” The deputy district attorney reported he took this to mean getting killed in court, metaphorically, and not as a threat on his life.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Matt Masich, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — Colorado lawyers are on notice to mind their manners in the courtroom.
Rude behavior such as rolling the eyes, making sarcastic remarks and interrupting the judge clearly violates the rules of etiquette — but the state’s attorney regulators say it also violates the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and is possible grounds for sanctions.
Attorney Mark E. Brennan knows this all too well. Last year, the state Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed a complaint against Brennan over his behavior while representing the plaintiff in a 2006 civil trial in the U.S. District Court for Colorado.
The complaint alleges that Brennan’s unconcealed dislike for opposing counsel and witnesses, expressed through snide comments and negative facial expressions — and his verbal sparring with the judge, Robert Blackburn, broke two rules: One forbidding “conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal” and one forbidding “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, or OARC, wrote in its complaint that Brennan’s conduct was “designed to aggravate Judge Blackburn.” Brennan does concede there was tension between himself and Blackburn.
“The reason he and I butted heads was that it became more and more apparent as the trial went on that he was doing everything he could to constrain me from making my case. I deeply resented the fact he was going out of his way to help the city,” Brennan said.
This week, Brennan will appear before a three-person panel, including Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero. The trio will decide whether his lapses in congeniality warrant disciplinary action, which can range from public censure to disbarment.
The disciplinary hearing will be the final act in a tumultuous last few years for Brennan. In June 2006, the Centennial-based solo practitioner won an age discrimination lawsuit and a $1.2 million judgment for his client in a suit against the City and County of Denver. In September 2007, Blackburn vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial because he found Brennan committed misconduct. (Denver eventually settled with Brennan’s client for $850,000 in December 2008). OARC initiated its investigation shortly after Blackburn issued his order for a new trial, in which the judge was scathing in his criticism of Brennan.

Clash of personalities
The complaint against Brennan can be seen as the result of the clash of personalities that occurred when the swaggering attorney and the hyper-decorous judge met in court.
Brennan stands 6’3”, with a commanding bass voice to match an imposing physical presence. He has strong opinions and doesn’t hesitate to share them.
That quality, combined with a seemingly innate distrust of authority and an irreverent, occasionally mocking, sense of humor, can make him seem aggressive or confrontational. Outside the courtroom, he makes liberal use of profanities, particularly when discussing the corruption he sees among “the leaders of the bar.”
An Indiana native, Brennan received his law degree from Stanford Law School in 1983 (he points out he was also accepted at other prestigious schools) and has practiced as a labor and employment lawyer for most of his career.
In solo practice for over a decade, he takes special pride in representing the little guy in suits against large organizations. This led him to take on the case of William Cadorna, a former Denver firefighter who brought an age discrimination suit against the City and County of Denver.
In 2006, the case went to trial in federal court before Judge Blackburn, a 1974 graduate of the University of Colorado School of Law. Blackburn was born in Lakewood, but lived much of his life in Las Animas, Colo. He has served as a U.S. district judge since 2002 and before that spent 14 years as a state district judge in Colorado’s 16th Judicial District.
Among lawyers who practice in Colorado’s federal trial court, Blackburn is known for his immense vocabulary. In his writing and speech, he not-infrequently uses words so unusual as to baffle all but the most learned lexicographer. In the courtroom, he maintains tight control over proceedings.
On the ratings Website robingroom.com — which calls itself the place “where judges are judged” — Blackburn scored a better numerical rating than most other judges in the district. The written comments on the site are a mixed-bag, perhaps indicating two sides to Blackburn’s judicial persona. Some of the anonymous posters praised his courtroom demeanor.
“He is fair, respectful, and kind to each and every person who steps foot into his courtroom,” wrote one person.
Others took him to task for his perceived imperiousness. One poster called him a “pedantic martinet with deep-seated issues and barely-concealed hostility toward plaintiffs.”

Wrestling control of the court
From day one of the eight-day Cadorna v. The City and County of Denver trial, Brennan and Blackburn seemed to get on each others’ nerves. Blackburn regularly reprimanded Brennan for continuing to question witnesses after opposing counsel made an objection and before the judge could rule on it.
Blackburn also took exception to the sarcastic editorial comments Brennan would interject while examining witnesses. Blackburn terminated Brennan’s cross-examination when the attorney remarked, “There is a straight answer” after drawing a response from an evasive witness.
Blackburn also claimed that Brennan was trying to bully him by interrupting and trying to get in the last word. After several warnings, he found Brennan in contempt of court after another interruption.
Despite the friction with the judge, Brennan won the case, and the jury agreed that his client was unjustly fired from the Denver Fire Department on false pretexts and denied reinstatement because he was over 50 years old. The $1.2 million in damages was one of the largest verdicts won in a suit against Denver — until Blackburn threw it out 15 months later.
In his order for a new trial for the Cadorna suit, Blackburn wrote that Brennan’s behavior was so egregious as to prejudice the jury and prevent a fair trial.
“Such disrespectful cockalorum, grandstanding, bombast, bullying, and hyperbole as Mr. Brennan exhibited throughout the trial are quite beyond my experience as a jurist, and, I fervently hope, will remain an aberration during the remainder of my time on the bench,” Blackburn said.
The judge theorized that Brennan intentionally flouted his authority in an effort to “to cast the court before the jury as bad tempered and nitpicking and himself as the victim of my supposed personal displeasure with him.”
Blackburn said that Brennan “successfully converted the courtroom into his bully pulpit,” wresting control away from the judge. The judge further claimed that the jury’s “verdict was the result of impermissible passion and prejudice inflamed by Mr. Brennan’s unacceptable trial tactics.”

‘Just trying to prove his point’
The issues raised in Blackburn’s order form the basis for OARC’s complaint against Brennan. In his response to the complaint, Brennan lambasted Blackburn’s new trial order.
“Judge Blackburn appears far more concerned with enforcing rules of etiquette than federal law,” Brennan wrote.
Beside the items mentioned in Blackburn’s order, the OARC complaint also mentioned other misconduct Brennan committed during the trial, such as calling an opposing lawyer a “little f—ing weasel” outside the courtroom.
In an interview with Law Week, and in his response to the complaint, Brennan readily admitted to doing this, but said it was irrelevant as it occurred outside the jury’s presence.
During its investigation, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel representatives interviewed seven of the eight Cadorna jurors. According to notes taken by the investigator, none of them found Brennan to be abusive or disruptive during the trial. One juror reported that Brennan was “[n]ot trying to disrupt — just trying to prove his point.” When another juror was asked if Brennan was abusive or obstreperous, he answered, “Not at all!”
Curiously, the juror interviews are not being included in the regulation counsel’s formal complaint – and none of them have been asked to testify at the disciplinary hearing. Brennan, meanwhile, is forbidden by the federal court from subpoenaing them. The jury foreman did agree to give an official deposition for the OARC case in which she said Brennan was passionate and occasionally smart-alecky, but never intentionally disruptive.
Brennan is convinced that both Blackburn and regulation counsel went after him as a favor to the Denver city attorney’s office, initiating the disciplinary proceeding against him to serve as a warning to other lawyers who would take on the City and County of Denver.
“I think there are a whole lot of deep psychological levels at which [Blackburn] felt the need to bring me down,” Brennan said. “I think he enjoyed doing it, even though the real motivation was something much more concrete and involved some kind of back-scratching between a big Republican contributor and the city of Denver.”
For his part, Attorney Regulation Counsel John Gleason said such speculation isn’t worthy of response.
Brennan’s case is remarkable for a few reasons. It’s rare for a disciplinary case to go all the way to hearing. Since 2000, the regulation counsel has received an average of a little more than 4,400 complaints a year, which result in about 56 formal complaints. Of these, around 18 a year go to trial before the presiding disciplinary judge. Most end with a conditional admission from the attorney — essentially a plea bargain.
Brennan, who is representing himself in the two-day proceedings this week, is also notable for the colorful language he uses in assessing OARC’s case against him: In interviews he refers to the “pusillanimous Judge Blackburn;” calls the case against him an “unethical witch hunt;” makes references to Soviet show trials; and alludes to “the craven apparatchiks who control the legal establishment in Colorado.”
The disciplinary hearing is being held in Denver District Court. The severity of the sanctions against Brennan – or the possible dismissal of charges – will help show where Colorado draws the line between bad etiquette and misconduct.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Rossi, LAW WEEK COLORADO
Editor’s Note: Statewide trial reporter Peter Rossi rounds up today’s court news.

Judge Denies Chambers’ Motion
On Monday, Arapahoe County District Court Judge Carlos Samour denied District Attorney Carol Chambers’ motion to postpone the appointment of a special prosecutor to file charges against two men accused of raping Julie Stene in 2000, the Denver Post reports. Chambers has until 5 p.m. Tuesday to appoint the prosecutor.
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12830250

Broomfield Man Gets Two Years For Tax Fraud
Loren Smith, a 64-year-old Broomfield tax preparer, was sentenced to two years in federal prison for his role in preparing falsified returns. Smith defrauded the IRS of $550,191 and the Colorado Department of Revenue of $111,495 in a two year span.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/14/Broomfield-tax-preparer-sentenced-fraud-Windfall/

Judge Rules In Favor Of Environmentalists
U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the U.S. Forest Service failed to consider environmental impacts of streamlining the forest planning process. The agency must continue using measurable standards to maintain the wildlife population.
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20090713/NEWS/907139968/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Local Company Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Rocky Mountain Instrument Co., a local business that manufactures laser optics, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s Colorado district Monday.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/13/lafayette-laser-optics-company-files-bankruptcy/

Judge Gives OK To Frontier’s Reorganization Plan
Frontier Airlines reorganization plan was approved by a judge in U.S. Bankruptcy Court Monday.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdK15NLj3oYLnxb2r4D0NDZwL0LQD99DO4300

Man Charged Baby’s Death
Kevin Neil Buehler, of Pueblo, appeared in court Monday on first degree murder charges and charges of fatal child abuse. Buehler is accused of killing his 9-month-old cousin and dumping her body in the trash.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12832955?source=rss

No Furlough For Sex Offender
Judge Terry Gilmore ruled Monday that former Fort Collins therapist Donald Fish could not take a furlough from Larimer County Detention Center to repair his home. Fish is serving a four year sentence.
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090714/NEWS01/907140337/1002/CUSTOMERSERVICE02

Have a trial you want to tell us about? Do you have questions about our future trial coverage? Send your queries to Peter Rossi at prossi@circuitmedia.com.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Trial Watch: First In A Probable Series Of Lawsuits Filed
By: Peter Rossi, LAW WEEK COLORADO
Editor’s Note: Statewide trial reporter Peter Rossi rounds up today’s court news.

First Lawsuit Filed In Hep-C Ordeal
Bernadette Romero filed the first lawsuit Friday in Denver District Court against HealthOne and its former employee Kristen Parker for being exposed to Hepatitis C from dirty needles Parker had used. Romero has not received the results of her test yet.
http://cbs4denver.com/local/kristen.parker.hepatitis.2.1081356.html

Man Violates State’s Hazardous Waste Act
Steve Casebolt pleaded guilty last week in Montrose County District Court to violating the Colorado Hazardous Waste Act. Casebolt’s business was extracting precious metals from catalytic convertors, which violated environmental regulations.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/police/stories/2009/07/11/071109_3a_blotter.html

Two Get 48 Years In Durgan Murder
Kristen Durgan and Brian Folsom were each sentenced to 48 years in prison Friday in the 11th Judicial District Court in Canon City for the kidnapping and murder of Durgan’s husband, James Durgan.
http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=16763

Global Water Files Cross Claims
Global Water Technologies filed cross-claims in the case Littman v. Kast in Denver District Court last week. Global Water Technologies is represented by Philip Feigin and Stephen Csajaghy of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-13-2009/0005058589&EDATE=

Woman Sentenced In Attempted Murder
Alana Noke’s attempt to claim she was mentally ill didn’t work as she was sentenced to 10 years in the Department of Corrections for attempting to kill he boyfriend’s mother. Weld County District Court Judge Marcelo Kopcow said Noke’s actions were shocking and that prison was appropriate.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090710/NEWS/907109979/1002/NONE&parentprofile=1001

Have a trial you want to tell us about? Do you have questions about our future trial coverage? Send your queries to Peter Rossi at prossi@circuitmedia.com.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >