Search

Delay in the processing of criminal cases has long been viewed as a serious national problem. Substantial differences exist among courts in the average time it takes to resolve both felony and misdemeanor cases, with past research producing inconclusive results on the causes of observed variation. In response, and with the support of the Arnold Foundation, the objective of this article is to highlight predictable variation in the timeliness of criminal case processing and how this knowledge supports court efforts to become more expeditious. Drawing on an extensive set of felony and misdemeanor cases resolved in seven Colorado courts, statistical analysis uncovers important patterns in the composition of criminal caseloads and clarifies how composition influences case duration. Moreover, similarities in the makeup of criminal caseloads show the utility of fundamental principles of criminal caseflow management and how courts benefit from being assessed comparatively against established performance benchmarks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors in this article argue that the Francisco Maestas et al vs. George H. Shone et al (1914) case is one of the earliest Mexican American challenges to school segregation in the United States. Unidentified for over a century, the lawsuit took place in southern Colorado, a region of the nation where Mexican Americans have deep historical roots. This case was unique because the racial background and linguistic needs of Mexican American children were contested. First, plaintiffs (Mexican Americans) argued their children were racially distinct as Mexicans and used the Colorado Constitution to challenge segregation because the state prohibited public schools from classifying and distinguishing children based on color and race. Defendants (school board members and the superintendent) countered that Mexican American children were Caucasian and claimed they were no different from other White children in the school district. Second, school district officials maintained that non-English speaking Mexican American children were placed in a separate school in order to serve their linguistic needs. The district court judge discovered that school officials had created a policy that sent all Mexican American children to the separate school. To the extent that many Mexican American children were English speaking, the district court judge ruled in favor of Francisco Maestas on the grounds that school officials could not prevent English-speaking Mexican American children from attending schools of their choice in general and schools that were closer to their homes in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the author's experiences with the 1996 U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) case Romer v. Evans which deals with the an effort to amend Colorado's Constitution in order to remove all legal protections for LGBT people in the state. The author's roles as an LGBT activist and an openly LGBT judge in Colorado are mentioned, along with litigation involving religious freedom laws and equal protection in America. Several other USSC cases are also examined.