Three members of the Court of Appeals fielded questions from Jefferson County students on Thursday about the personal aspects of judging, including how they combat their biases and how the cases they hear affect their mental health.

Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov responded that the judges signed up to deal with difficult subject matter, but he expressed concern for other participants in the legal system who may be there involuntarily, like jurors.

“I think the trial judges are beginning to appreciate the importance of ensuring jurors are getting the care they need after the trial in these trials with horrendous facts. Ten years ago, it wasn’t happening and jurors were really traumatized,” he said. “We all have to take care of each other and keep in mind it’s not just the judges. It’s all participants in the system who need care.”

The Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals travel outside their courthouse in downtown Denver in the spring and fall as part of the long-running “Courts in the Community” program. This week, a three-judge appellate panel visited Green Mountain High School in Lakewood for the purpose of holding oral arguments in two real cases in front of an audience of students, then taking questions from attendees.

One member of the audience asked whether the judges feel discomfort when making the “legally accurate” decision instead of the one that “feels right.”

“Our job is not to judge the people,” responded Judge Pax L. Moultrie. “Our job is to judge the job that was done in the lower court. It’s not a moral, I guess, decision.”

“I call those ‘Pepto-Bismol moments’ when I’m like, ‘Oh, I don’t know,'” added Judge Sueanna P. Johnson. “There are times when I think, ‘This defendant got overcharged by the prosecution.’ Like, did he have to have 15 charges for what he did? … And sometimes you see a case where you’re like, ‘Wow, if I were sitting in that (trial judge’s) seat, I don’t know if I would have sentenced that person to that long.'”

Johnson continued that in those moments of discomfort, when the law may require a different outcome than she deems just, “I know I’m actually doing the job I’ve been asked to do, and not necessarily deciding the cases on my own personal preference.”

The Court of Appeals was originally scheduled to travel to Green Mountain last year, but a snowstorm forced the cancelation of the event. Malissa Sloan, who works in career services for Jeffco Public Schools, said she asked the court if it would consider a do-over in 2025, and the judicial branch agreed.

“October is when we start preparing the school and getting everything ready,” she said. “The teachers go through a training with the court system.”

Tim Campbell, a U.S. history and economics teacher whose students attended the event, said he was impressed with how quickly the lawyers reacted on their feet to the judges’ questioning in such a short time — 15 minutes per side. He also was not surprised the students’ questions to the judges were personal in nature, given recent high-profile legal news out of the federal court system.

“Court cases right now are front and center and the kids see it,” he said. By way of comparison, “I used to teach inflation during a recessionary period and the kids didn’t quite understand it. Teaching inflation now, kids very much get it.”

One student asked the judges about how their personal characteristics affected their jobs and the treatment they received from others. 

“When Judge Johnson joined our court, she was certainly the first visually impaired judge,” responded Lipinsky. “We realized we were using some terms that were discriminatory against disabled people and it’s actually changed the way we use language. And it’s thanks to Judge Johnson.”

Johnson added that judges’ varied life experiences do not necessarily affect case outcomes, but their contributions can indirectly influence the long-term evolution of the law.

“The hope is that maybe along a trajectory of time, some of that language, some of that thought process, gets put into the law,” she said. “Or people start seeing it in the General Assembly and they think, ‘Maybe we should change a law.'”

The two cases the students heard involved a criminal appeal for a defendant convicted of menacing and other charges, as well as a negligence lawsuit about a house fire.

“I am up here trying to be his voice and get his argument and his story in front of the court, and get them to understand what went wrong,” said public defender Robin Rheiner in response to a student question.

“We weren’t really trying to explain anything,” added her counterpart, Senior Assistant Attorney General Sonia R. Russo. “The judges on the panel are all experts in the law, so that experience level is already there. But when you’re speaking with jurors, the idea is to tell a story.”

Taylor A. Clapp, one of the attorneys in the civil appeal, said he had to argue in court on numerous occasions, so he was not nervous to appear in front of a large auditorium of students.

“The more times you do it, the more reps you get, the more comfortable you are,” he said.

In contrast, his opposing counsel, Robert E. Roetzel, said he had no idea when he was writing his appellate briefs that the case would be selected for argument at a high school.

“This is only my second oral argument,” he said.

Afterward, Anisa Valdez, a 12th grade student who participates in human rights activism and has aspirations of being a lawyer or a politician, said she appreciated the judges’ comments about the oath they took to follow the law. She also felt there should be a review of laws at all levels to ensure they are equitable for the current population.

“Laws, they’re not given. You have to fight for them,” Valdez said.