It’s been a busy week in the worlds of Colorado law enforcement and justice. As regular Colorado Politics readers will already have noted, there were several stories on the law and law enforcement that are worthy of a quick look by you, the nice folks that deign to read my twice-weekly missives.

I’m sure a number of us were shocked, or at least startled, when we read headlines about the entire police force of the lovely little town of Springfield resigned, all at once. And we are not talking Chief Wiggum here (sorry, I had to make a Simpson’s reference, it won’t happen again (Ed: good)). I admit the initial headlines were startling, but when one reads the actual story, you find there is considerably less drama involved than might appear at first.

This is a good example of reading beyond the headlines. As it turns out, the “entire” police force of Springfield is three guys: a chief and two not-chiefs. Both of the not-chiefs resigned to take other jobs, and the chief had personal reasons for stepping down. And it is not the wild west out there in Baca County, as the county sheriff has taken over the policing of Springfield until the town can recreate its own police force. I am impressed though by what Sheriff Aaron Shiplett posted on the department’s Facebook page: “We also want to make this message very clear to anyone thinking this is an opportune time to commit crimes or victimize anyone in Baca County. You are free to test that assumption at your convenience, however we will warn you, the community is fed up with it, law enforcement will be here in force, they will exhaust every resource at their disposal in finding you, the lights are always on at the Baca County Jail and we still have a few bunks available." That’s pretty badass, Sheriff. I’m impressed.

Two other CP stories involving the law caught my eye, and for rather opposite reasons. The first story tells the tale of a state appeals court overturning a drug conviction because of a detective’s improper testimony at trial. The second case involved the appeals court deciding that in spite of juror “irregularities” and improper prosecutor conduct, no real error existed in a trial and a conviction was not overturned. I’m clearly not a lawyer, but I admit the two stories suggest, at least to me, that something here isn’t entirely clear.

In the first case, a man was arrested in Jefferson County after being found with a whole bunch of drugs and drug paraphernalia in his car. As noted in the story, the cops found “Methamphetamine, pills, and heroin in multiple bags and containers, plus counterfeit bills, syringes, a glass pipe, a digital scale and a small spoon with white residue.” The DA decided to charge him not only with having the drugs, but also with intent to distribute drugs, which carries a pretty hefty sentence.

The man claimed that he was an addict, and that all the stuff was for his personal consumption. In response, the prosecutors put a cop on the stand who testified, as an expert, that this was a “classic case” of intent to distribute drugs, case closed, so to speak. But a three-judge panel of the appeals court disagreed, overturning one of his convictions (other convictions stemming from the arrest stood). The court ruled that the detective likely was seen by the jury as an expert and a true authority figure, and that based on his testimony, it was reasonable to assume that no one person would ever have all that stuff for himself. So, in this case, the appeals court ruled that a conviction would be overturned due to prosecutorial errors.

Now, take a look at the case of a Prowers County woman who was convicted of conspiring to rob a grocery store in a small town. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys noted that in such a small town, most everyone would likely know the folks involved or know of them, and of the store itself. The jury pool was 70 folks, roughly 10% of the entire town including people who told the judge that they had heard about or read about the case. Heck, one was a former teacher of the defendant (which, I guess, could go either way) and another had been a friend since childhood. During the trial, the judge warned the potential jurors not to talk about the case on breaks, yet several did, including one who claimed he was at the store in question when the defendant “and her boyfriend robbed the store”

Those last folks, of course, did not end up on the jury, but other problems with jurors popped up, with alternates being added to the jury as others were kicked off. The defense team moved for a mistrial each time a juror issue occurred, but the judge denied all the requests. There is more to the story, but you get the point.

So, in one case, we saw improper actions cause a guilty verdict to be set aside while in another, a jury with what can at least be called irregularities found its verdict upheld. I would guess that the lawyers in the latter case might be itching to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

I have a great deal of respect for Colorado’s judicial system, and these two cases, as reported, may well represent outliers. But I admit, to this non-lawyer, reading the two stories does make me wonder just a little bit about how evenhanded courts can ever be, given the caseloads and the significant differences of cases tried in Denver versus those tried in small towns. Once again it is a good thing that we have a (mostly) free and open press to report on such things. I will be watching the pages of CP for updates as these cases move forward.