Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2012/06/26/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:01:20+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Glustrom v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission on June 25, 2012.
Recovery of Costs—Unjust and Unreasonable Rate Order—“Used and Useful”—Exclusion of Testimony.
In 2005, with the approval of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) began constructing a coal-fired electric power unit known as Comanche 3. When Xcel sought to recover a portion of its construction costs nearly four years later during a rate proceeding, Leslie Glustrom intervened. Glustrom sought to introduce testimony that Xcel acted improperly and, consequently, should not recover its costs. The PUC excluded most of her testimony, a ruling that Glustrom challenged. Glustrom separately challenged the depreciation rate and the possibility that Comanche 3 might not be “used and useful” at the time rates went into effect. The PUC denied her challenges, and the district court affirmed.
The Supreme Court held that the PUC did not abuse its discretion when it struck substantial portions of Glustrom’s testimony pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Evidence. Further, the depreciation rate approved by the PUC was established pursuant to law and in accordance with the evidence. The Court also held that the PUC was free to exercise its discretion in departing from a strict application of the “used and useful” principle. Glustrom failed to meet her burden in showing why such a departure here would result in a rate that is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Figueroa-Ortega on June 25, 2012.
The People brought an interlocutory appeal pursuant to CRS § 16-12-102(2) and CAR 4.1 challenging the district court’s suppression of statements made by defendant to a police detective. The district court found that the statements in question were the product of custodial interrogation, without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court reversed the suppression order of the district court, holding that because defendant was not in custody at the time he made the statements in question, no Miranda warnings were required.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Padilla-Lopez on June 25, 2012.
CRS § 18-1.3-602—Criminal Case Restitution—“Victim”—Aggrieved by the Wrongful Conduct of the Offender—Elements of Underlying Offense—Department of Human Services.
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ holding that the El Paso County Department of Human Services (DHS) is not a “victim” entitled to restitution under CRS § 18-1.3-602(4)(a). Because DHS is not “aggrieved by” the crime of child abuse, the restitution statute does not allow DHS to recover costs it has expended in the course of fulfilling its statutorily mandated duty to provide necessary care and guidance to dependent and neglected children.
On Monday, June 25, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions.
Their story begins with years of intimidation and retaliation by the former Maricopa County Attorney. His targets were sitting judges, County Supervisors, County administrators, and private lawyers. After years of prosecutorial misconduct, the Rule of Law in Maricopa County was fast disappearing. As the elected head of the fourth-largest county in the United States, his misuse of power led to the largest lawyer discipline prosecution in history (chronicled in a 33-count, 247-page opinion).
Over the course of their investigation and prosecution, Gleason and Sudler were subject to shocking levels of harassment and intimidation as they worked to bring down a web of abuses at the highest levels. This program will allow them to speak directly to attorneys so that their extensive investigation into the ethical abuses in Maricopa County can serve as a lesson about prosecutorial misconduct, the Rule of Law, and professional conduct. You won’t want to miss this opportunity to hear first-hand about their experience in Arizona and their attempt to return justice to Maricopa County.
Law Week Colorado recently ran a story, Into The Shadows, which documented Gleason’s and Sudler’s investigation. Read an except below, followed by registration information.
The Arizona Bar Association, which licenses and regulates attorneys, . . . asked the Supreme Court to appoint an independent investigator to look into possible ethical violations by [Andrew] Thomas and two subordinates — Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander. The court reached out to a trusted name, the person who’d just helped revamp the state’s attorney ethics system. Regulation counsel Gleason and his team would be paid by Arizona, set up shop in that state’s Supreme Court building and somehow still manage the Colorado office.
When the chief justice first called, Gleason was far from certain of a positive outcome.
It would also be the toughest. In a sense, Gleason and Sudler carried on their backs the hopes of a legal community long frustrated with what Phoenix’s mayor termed a “reign of terror.” Numerous ethics complaints had been filed against Thomas in the past, but none came to fruition.
This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, July 18. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 v. 
 § 18
 § 18