Here's how a new state bill and court directive may impact court proceedings in Pueblo

Justin Reutter, The Pueblo Chieftain
·3 min read

The Colorado General Assembly has passed a bill that requires all court hearings to be livestreamed on Webex or another video conferencing platform.

The Colorado Supreme Court also issued a directive last month requiring Colorado courts to livestream certain proceedings in criminal cases, subject to staffing and technological limitations, according to a news release from the state supreme court.

However, the directive signed by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Boatright, which went into effect Monday, includes exceptions from the requirement of livestreaming for evidentiary hearings, trials, bench conferences, communications between clients and their attorneys, meetings in judges' chambers, "problem-solving dockets" and "juvenile hearings."

The bill passed by the Colorado legislature includes a presumption that trials and evidentiary hearings held in open court will be livestreamed. However, the bill does allow a judge to limit livestreaming after finding that the livestreaming of proceedings would risk "compromising the safety of any person, the defendant's right to a fair trial, or the victim's rights, and there is no less restrictive alternative that preserves the public interest in remote observation."

Others are reading: Pueblo Chemical Depot commander suspended amid investigation

The directive similarly included a framework by which certain cases of public interest, such as trials and pre-trial evidentiary hearings, may be livestreamed at the discretion of a local court. Under the directive, in determining whether a case should be livestreamed, a judge must consider the following:

  • Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that livestreaming would interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.

  • Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that livestreaming would create any adverse consequence to a party, attorney, victim, or witness.

  • Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that livestreaming would unduly detract from the solemnity, decorum, and dignity of the court.

  • Whether any prior violations of this directive or other rules of the court have occurred in the same matter.

  • The level of public interest in the case, consideration of the Victim Rights Act, whereby a victim has the right to be present in person, by phone, virtually by audio or video, or similar technology for all critical stages of the criminal justice process.

  • Consideration of the Americans with Disabilities Act, whereby deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind individuals may request communication access services by completing the standard judicial ADA request form.

But under the Colorado Supreme Court's directive, the decision to livestream proceedings such as evidentiary hearings and trials ultimately remains at the discretion of a judge, unlike the state bill.

Both the directive and the state bill create conditions that must be met for livestreaming to occur. According to both, the courtroom must be equipped with the technology to livestream a proceeding and meet staffing requirements to initiate and monitor the proceedings.

Under the directive, viewers are also required to conduct themselves with normal court decorum. A disruptive viewer may be muted or expelled from the court without warning and be subject to contempt proceedings.

Finally, under the directive, no recording, screenshots, or photos of a proceeding are allowed without the express permission of the court.

More: Colorado passes bill removing some barriers to public records requests

The state bill specifies that if the court does not have sufficient existing staff or technology to allow remote observation to the public but later obtains the staff or technology to do so, the court must comply with the bill within 90 days of obtaining the staff or technology.

All 10th Judicial District courtrooms are equipped with the technology and staff to livestream proceedings, with links to each virtual courtroom on the 10th Judicial District Website.

Jon Sarche, a spokesperson for the Colorado Judicial Department, said he could not answer how the bill and supreme court directive would apply if there is conflict between the bill and the directive.

"We'll have to wait to see how it plays out in time," he said, but noted that the Colorado Supreme Court does not challenge state legislation.

The bill was sent to the desk of Gov. Jared Polis on May 12, and is awaiting his signature.

Questions, comments, or story tips? Contact Justin at jreutterma@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter @jayreutter1.

This article originally appeared on The Pueblo Chieftain: Bill passed by state legislature could impact Pueblo court proceedings