Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2010/09/23/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:31:49+00:00

Document:
Testimony relating to other relevant issues is also welcomed by the Commission.
The hearing will take place on Thursday, October 14, 2010 from 2:00 – 5:00pm at the American Bar Association headquarters located at 21st Floor, 321 N. Clark Street in Chicago.
Those interested in testifying in person can find submission requirements here.
Those unable to attend the hearing but interested in providing comments and responses can submit them by December 15, 2010, via email or hard copy to: ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Attn: Senior Research Paralegal Natalia Vera, 15th Floor, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654.
Notice of the public hearing can be found here.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Brown v. People on September 20, 2010.
Criminal Trial—Jury Instructions—Lesser-Included and Non-Included Offenses.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment, holding that a criminal defendant who maintains his or her innocence throughout trial may seek an inconsistent jury instruction on both a lesser-included offense and voluntary intoxication, provided there is a rational basis for the instruction in the evidence. Specifically, the Court held that second-degree murder is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder and that a criminal defendant may receive inconsistent jury instructions on these two crimes. The Court also held that because a voluntary intoxication defense would relieve a defendant of first-degree murder and leave him or her liable for the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, a defendant may receive an inconsistent jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. However, the Court stressed that inconsistent jury instructions on lesser-included offenses and voluntary intoxication are proper only when there is a rational basis for the instruction in the evidentiary record. Because there was no rational basis in the record in this case, the failure of the trial court to allow inconsistent jury instructions was harmless.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rodriguez v. People on September 20, 2010.
By operation of law, the judgment of the court of appeals in Rodriguez v. People, 209 P.3d 1151 (Colo.App. 2008), was affirmed by an equally divided court. See C.A.R. 35(e).
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Zhuk on September 20, 2010.
Calculating Time Limit for Filing Appeals—Crim.P. 37.1—C.A.R. 26(a).
The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely the People’s appeal under Crim.P. 37.1. Under Crim.P. 37.1, the notice of appeal must be filed within ten days of the entry of the order being appealed. The rule does not specify whether to count ten calendar days or whether to omit intervening Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Because the rule directs the court to the relevant Rule of Appellate Procedure when “no procedure is specifically prescribed by this rule,” time computation is governed by C.A.R. 26(a), which excludes intervening Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Under C.A.R. 26(a), the People’s appeal in this case was timely.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Streu and the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, in the Arkansas River and its Tributaries, in Lake and Chaffee Counties: Streu v. City of Colorado Springs on September 20, 2010.
Dismissal of a Case for Failure to Prosecute.
The Supreme Court held that the water court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. Under the factual circumstances of the case, the water court did not act in a manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable manner. The water court also did not err when it dismissed plaintiff’s case without making findings of fact or conclusions of law. C.R.C.P. 41(b) does not require a trial court to make findings of fact or conclusions of law when it dismisses a case for failure to prosecute.
Browning v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co.
In United States v. Leyva-Matos, the Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits. Petitioner, found guilty of possession and conspiracy to distribute marijuana, appealed his conviction, claiming that the district court improperly considered information he provided to the Government on the understanding it would not be used against him. Petitioner’s plea agreement provides, however, that should the court not accept any of the agreement’s stipulations, the defendant waives his right to appeal based on such stipulations. Appellate waivers are only unlawful when they seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; nothing in the case indicated that the waiver was unlawful, and Petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that enforcing the waiver would result in the miscarriage of justice.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.