Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2013/11/13/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:40:34+00:00

Document:
We get the collywobbles from too much newness. We try to cure them by getting back on familiar, reasonable and rational ground. We do our research, hoping to convince ourselves we’ll be safe out there. Trouble is, there’s research, and then there’s… well, the other kind.
Take observational/anecdotal research, for example. It relies on “common sense,” which ought to be our first clue. Common sense says don’t get carried away, make sure you have a backup plan, and all the rest. Sounds good, but it turns out what passes for common sense isn’t always so sensible. See, e.g., the book Accidental Mind. But it doesn’t take a neurologist to figure that out. We just need to remember that anecdotal research lives and dies on the assumption that all of us have our eyes wide open and can see the way the world actually works. Um, yeah, right, got it.
Research that shows cause and effect is the best, right? After all, science has been running on that paradigm for a long time. True, but then quantum physics came along and ruined everything by showing how observation changes outcome: i.e., we can find cause and effect just by looking for it. So much for objectivity and reliability.
Besides, cause and effect is especially elusive when what we really want to know is, if we do what we love, will the money really follow? Question: How many success stories do we need before we’ll accept them as convincing data? Answer: One more than we’ve already got.
Then of course there’s legal research: applying the law to the facts, making the best case for one side or the other. We’ve been doing that ever since the very first time a “think like a lawyer” neuron fired in our brains at law school, and by now we’re so good at it, it’s no help at all.
Besides, we’re not actually doing research. What we really want is that hypothetical perfect negotiation outcome, where Life ends up with all the risk and liability, and we get a fully-secured ROI in return. Nice try. Let us know when that starts working for you.
But surely there’s a way to make big change be reasonable, isn’t there? I mean, isn’t there?
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People in Interest of A.A. on Tuesday, November 12, 2013.
Colorado Code of Criminal Procedure—Colorado Children’s Code.
The People petitioned pursuant to CAR 21 for relief from an in limine ruling of the juvenile court allowing the introduction of testimony by the juvenile’s psychological expert without regard for the court-ordered examination mandated by CRS § 16-8-107. The juvenile court reasoned that in the absence of any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code specifying otherwise, the requirements of CRS § 16-8-107 did not apply to delinquency proceedings.
The Supreme Court approved the ruling of the juvenile court and discharged its rule to show cause. Because the Colorado Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that it will not apply to proceedings under the Colorado Children’s Code except as specifically set forth in the Criminal Procedure Code itself, and because no provision of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests that § 16-8-107 was intended to apply to proceedings under the Children’s Code, the Court found that the court-ordered examination in question cannot apply to delinquency proceedings.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency and Strand on Tuesday, November 12, 2013.
Public Nuisance Statute—Civil Forfeiture Proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that CRS § 16-13-307(1.6) of the public nuisance statute, which is a specialized proceeding governing civil forfeiture actions, provides for the dismissal of a forfeiture claim and the return of seized property only when the underlying criminal charge is dismissed by a trial court. It does not apply where the underlying criminal case is dismissed following a reversal of the related criminal conviction on appeal when a judgment of forfeiture has already entered. Here, defendant sought the return of $11,200 that was forfeited, distributed, and spent by the receiving agencies three-and-a-half years before his criminal conviction was dismissed following reversal by the court of appeals. Because CRS § 16-13-307(1.6) did not apply to this case, where the forfeiture claim had ripened into a forfeiture judgment years before defendant’s criminal conviction was dismissed, the court of appeals’ judgment was reversed.

References: § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 v. 
 § 16
 § 16