September 11, 2026 Case Summaries

Issue #1: It looks like there may be a new ADA in El Paso County that needs better training since he committed obvious misconduct during voir dire in his attempts to “clarify” the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The COA found the error did not require reversal, but you El Paso practitioners – and really all practitioners – should be ready to object to this type of voir dire. Issue #2: It was not improper for the ADA to emblazon the 4th JD DA’s seal on the first slide of the PowerPoint presentation along with the case name. At least that was this division’s conclusion. I suspect a different panel could come to a different conclusion, and I urge you to object to such a poorly disguised attempt at legitimizing the charges.

Sasha Cronick sued two Colorado Springs police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawfully arresting and searching her in a motel parking lot. A jury found against her at trial. The Tenth Circuit reversed because the trial court admitted evidence that shifted the jury’s focus from “Did the officers illegally arrest and search Cronick under § 1983?” to, “Is Sasha Cronick a bad person?” FYI: the Colorado Springs Officers being sued are Robert McCafferty and Christopher Pryor.

Cooper’s separate convictions for both receiving and possessing child pornography violated his Double Jeopardy right to be free from cumulative punishments for convictions on the same offense.

The majority found that Martin was entitled to a postconviction hearing where she could prove her allegations that plea counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to research and explain the elements and defenses for the charges that she pleaded guilty to.

The panel rejected Ostertag’s Fourth Amendment challenges to the search of his car based on a drug dog’s alert. First, they found that the free air sniff was not a search because it did not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, assuming the dog’s physical contact with the car was a search under the trespass to chattels theory, it was not an unconstitutional search because the dog’s alert prior to touching the vehicle supplied sufficient probable cause. While the results are bad for Mr. Ostertag, the opinion does provide litigation insights that could be helpful to your clients.