Keep up the good work!

If past practice is any indication, the supreme court won't issue decisions again until September.  The court of appeals will likely keep to its schedule of releasing published opinions on every other Thursday.  So, get to work!  :-)

I did a similar analysis in the summer of 2006 at Wash Park Prophet with the complete data set as of that date, which produced a similar conclusion, but I didn't bring in the data from summer 2006 to December 2006 combine the three periods into one data set this time, because it takes multiple computer searches to do so as the Court took down its 2006 advance sheets from its website.  This would take more time the story deadlines allowed this time around.

Also in the game plan are articles on individual judges based upon the decisions they write themselves, but that will probably be in law review or Colorado lawyer forums, rather than for CoCo, as the legal issues may be too nuanced to make interesting reading for non-lawyers.

But, if we get a few more days with no published opinions, you can expect a similar statistical analysis of dissents and concurrences in the Colorado Court of Appeals by judge, although it will not have the same cluster analysis of coalitions in every possible three justice combination.

Instead, I suspect the idea is that, as solicitor general, where she was responsible for the office that decided which, of all pending appeals in which “the People” or the State of Colorado was a party, ought to be sent to the Colorado Supreme Court and argued there.  As someone who has been an attorney of record (sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly through the AG's office) for a litigant in those cases, she would be improper in ruling on those cases.  Since no one can know precisely which of those cases were seriously considered, and which were not, without breaching attorney-client confidentiality, it would create an appearance of impropriety for her to issue an opinion on any of them.

Of course, this shouldn't apply to cases that were being handled by district attorneys at the trial level prior to her appointment, as the D.A.'s office in Colorado is not part of the Attorney-General's office in Colorado (in contrast, some states, like Florida, vest all prosecutions in a state attorney general's office).

Also, I want to specifically disavow any implication of laziness or improper motive to Justice Eid's frequent non-participation in cases. 

Her decision is the right and proper thing to do.  She should be applauded for the high ethical standard she has set.  I have no doubt that the temptation for someone like her is to plunge into helping decide important legal issues in a manner that she believes to be correct, rather than to reduce her work load.  But, she has resisted that temptation, despite the fact that there is really little anyone in the system could have done to second guess her had she not done so and despite the fact that it must be an uncomfortable situation to be in to be on the court and yet not be involved in half of its cases.

One quick note about a common misconception:  Justice Eid did NOT work on criminal cases during the 5 minutes she was employed by the AG's office.  In fact, she had very little direct involvement in any appeals.  Her decision to recuse from all cases handled by the AG's office while she was there is an (over) abundance of caution, given that she didn't work on (or know anything about) the overwhelming number of appeals going on in the office.  But, it sure has lightened her work load.

One quick note about a common misconception:  Justice Eid did NOT work on criminal cases during the 5 minutes she was employed by the AG’s office.  In fact, she had very little direct involvement in any appeals.  Her decision to recuse from all cases handled by the AG’s office while she was there is an (over) abundance of caution, given that she didn’t work on (or know anything about) the overwhelming number of appeals going on in the office.  But, it sure has lightened her work load.

Instead, I suspect the idea is that, as solicitor general, where she was responsible for the office that decided which, of all pending appeals in which “the People” or the State of Colorado was a party, ought to be sent to the Colorado Supreme Court and argued there.  As someone who has been an attorney of record (sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly through the AG’s office) for a litigant in those cases, she would be improper in ruling on those cases.  Since no one can know precisely which of those cases were seriously considered, and which were not, without breaching attorney-client confidentiality, it would create an appearance of impropriety for her to issue an opinion on any of them.

Of course, this shouldn’t apply to cases that were being handled by district attorneys at the trial level prior to her appointment, as the D.A.’s office in Colorado is not part of the Attorney-General’s office in Colorado (in contrast, some states, like Florida, vest all prosecutions in a state attorney general’s office).

Also, I want to specifically disavow any implication of laziness or improper motive to Justice Eid’s frequent non-participation in cases. 

Her decision is the right and proper thing to do.  She should be applauded for the high ethical standard she has set.  I have no doubt that the temptation for someone like her is to plunge into helping decide important legal issues in a manner that she believes to be correct, rather than to reduce her work load.  But, she has resisted that temptation, despite the fact that there is really little anyone in the system could have done to second guess her had she not done so and despite the fact that it must be an uncomfortable situation to be in to be on the court and yet not be involved in half of its cases.