Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cardman v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 1, 2019No. 17SC541, CardmanPublished

1DissentJustice Hood

¶44 The adage about bad facts sometimes making bad law seems to hold true today. By extending plain error review to unpreserved suppression claims, the majority essentially nullifies a long-standing and controlling rule of criminal procedure. Moreover, in doing so, it undermines the policy objectives of the rule and places an unreasonable burden on trial courts and the court of appeals. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

I. Analysis

A. Crim. P. 41(g) Requires Motions Like the One Here to Be Filed Before Trial

¶45 Since 1970, criminal defendants in Colorado have been required by rule to challenge…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. People v. CurtisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  4. Hagos v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2012
  5. United States v. Alphonse SiscaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API