North High School students watched as Colorado’s Supreme Court justices pondered Thursday whether a mother convicted of killing her baby should get a new trial and whether the state Lottery is immune from a breach-of-contract lawsuit.
The seven justices turned the high school auditorium into a real courtroom as part of Courts in the Community, an education program that began 21 years ago with a mission to educate students about the appellate process.
The Lottery lawsuit claimed the Colorado State Lottery Division continued to promote and sell scratch tickets for games in which the grand prize had already been awarded. The Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the case based on the Government Immunity Act.
The justices also are considering the case against Janine Bloom of Colorado Springs, who was convicted of killing her 6-month-old son in 2002.
A witness testifying at Bloom’s trial revealed in front of the jury that another witness who could have helped her case failed a polygraph test. The defense moved for a mistrial because information about the polygraph was not supposed to be heard by the jury. The motion was denied by the trial court.
Also, Bloom’s attorney, Anne Stockham, argued that Bloom was not given an adequate mental-competency evaluation before her trial began.
Justice Alex Martinez questioned Assistant Attorney General Christine Brady about whether the outcome of Bloom’s case relied heavily upon the credibility of witness testimony.
“What other evidence sheds light on how the baby died?” he asked.
Students asked Stockham and Brady whether they get emotionally attached to cases.
“You do think, ‘Wow, this woman is spending the rest of her life in prison, and you’re not sure she killed her child,” Stockham said.
Student Christina Garcia wanted to know from the lawyers on the Colorado Lottery case why it was reasonable to expect consumers to access the Internet to find out whether the scratch game grand prize had already been awarded before purchasing a ticket.
“Nobody would play if people knew there was no chance to win these prizes,” said Walter Sargent, attorney for Lavonne Robinson, who sued the Colorado State Lottery Division.
Another student asked Daniel Domenico, solicitor general representing the state Lottery, why the government is immune from lawsuits.
“We are trying to protect the taxpayers from tort liabilities and unpredictable potential liabilities,” Domenico said. “You can’t budget for these types of things.”
Gemma Tamarez, a 16-year-old junior, said she could see validity in the arguments on both sides of the Lottery issue.
“In a way, it’s not fair if they are (liable) for everybody,” she said. “In another way, it’s not fair to the woman who bought the ticket.”
The justices can take several weeks or months to issue a ruling in each case, and the questions they asked during the arguments do not necessarily indicate which side they favor.
At least one question drew laughter from the students.
“Isn’t the lottery a form of gambling, a big swindle anyway?” asked Justice Gregory Hobbs Jr. “I mean, don’t people take a gamble?”
Felisa Cardona: 303-954-1219 or fcardona@denverpost.com
