July 17, 2019

Archives for May 30, 2012

UPDATED: Colorado Supreme Court Amends Several Rules of Judicial Discipline

Editor’s Note: On June 20, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court announced that a different rule change will be categorized as Rule Change 2012(06). This rule change will now be categorized as 2012(07). Click here to review the redline changes (still labeled as 2012(06)) and click here to review a clean copy of the finalized Rules of Judicial Conduct (labeled as 2012(07)) .

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended several Rules of Judicial Discipline. Many changes were made to the rules, including some renumbering. Affected rules include:

  • Rule 4. Jurisdiction and Powers
  • Rule 5. Grounds for Discipline
  • Rule 18.5. Special Masters [formerly Rule 24]
  • Rule 21.5. Discovery
  • Rule 33. Record of Proceedings
  • Rule 33.5.  Disability Proceedings
  • Rule 36.5. Conviction of a Crime
  • Rule 37. Recommendation and Notice
  • Rule 40. Decision

These amendments were adopted on March 22, 2012 and are effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to the Rules of Judicial Discipline, outlined as Rule Change 2012(06).

Tenth Circuit: Jury Properly Instructed that Burden of Proving Affirmative Defense Rested on Defendant and that Jury Could Infer Defendant’s Associates Knew Vehicle Was Stolen

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Burks on Tuesday, May 29, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conviction. Petitioner “provided codes to an auto-theft ring that were used to create working keys for specific vehicles. One such vehicle—an Escalade—was stolen in Nevada, stripped to its frame, and subsequently discovered and auctioned by authorities. Several months later, the same Escalade, now reassembled, was identified in Utah. Based on this discovery, [Petitioner] was charged and convicted of aiding and abetting the possession and transportation of a stolen vehicle . . . . On appeal, [Petitioner] argues that the jury was improperly instructed on the affirmative defense of withdrawal and was allowed to make an improper inference that [Petitioner’s] associates knew the vehicle was stolen.”

The Court disagreed with Petitioner’s contentions. “First, assuming that withdrawal is an affirmative defense to a conviction premised on accomplice liability, [the Court held] that the jury was properly instructed that the burden of proving the defense rested on[Petitioner]. Second, [the Court held] that the jury was properly instructed that it could infer that [Petitioner’s] associates knew the vehicle was stolen.” The Court also rejected Petitioner’s claims “that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the district court erred in its restitution order.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/29/12

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and nine unpublished opinions.

Williams v. Jones

United States v. Pena-Martinez

Tillis v. Ezell

Schwartz v. Khalsa

Kaitov v. Holder, Jr.

Clemmons v. FC Stapleton, II

United States v. Porras-Rubi

Morris, Jr. v. Cabela’s Wholesale, Inc.

Bartel v. Tri-State Contractors, Inc.

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.