Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey

LAW WEEK COLORADO

DENVER — Colorado Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey has started a farewell tour, of sorts. She was heard Wednesday evening on Colorado Public Radio in an interview with Ryan Warner. Topics included how Mullarkey deals with multiple sclerosis, her amateur piano playing, and her friend and Harvard Law School roommate Pamela Minzner, who followed a parallel career path to become a justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court. The full interview can be heard on CPR’s website.

Asked what her greatest contribution as chief justice has been, Mullarkey said:

“I think it has been just to help build up the resources for the whole branch, the judicial branch of government. One of my main things has been to secure from the legislature adequate resources so that we can fully staff the courts. We’ve had in the state a tremendous growth over the last 20 years or so, and I was very concerned that the courts weren’t keeping up with that growth so that we could timely handle cases. We’ve been successful in getting increases in the number of judges and other staff to keep up with the population growth.”

The conversation turned to the controversial 5-2 “mill-levy freeze” decision that Mullarkey authored last year, creating a few moments of tension.

Warner: Would you tell me just a little bit about that decision, for which the court came under some criticism?

Mullarkey: What we were doing there was construing a statute that had been passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor. So we were construing a law and the question was whether that was consistent with the state constitution.

Warner: And specifically TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

Mullarkey: And what it amounted to was a change in the state law in the way that property taxes had been administered, particularly with respect to the schools. The choice and the change in law was made by the legislature, and the question was whether they could make that change. And we said that they could, that they had the discretion to decide to make that change in the law.

Warner: Without a vote of the people.

Mullarkey: That’s what representative government is: you vote for those legislators and they made that change.

Warner: Well let me say this: without a vote under TABOR.

Mullarkey: Well, I guess.

Warner: And you felt that that was within their discretion?

Mullarkey: Of course.

Warner: You didn’t see that, for example, as a new tax?

Mullarkey: It wasn’t a tax. I really don’t want to… I mean if this is the way you want to do the interview, let’s just end it now. I don’t want to get into an argument about this.

Warner: Oh, not at all — I’m just interested in the philosophy behind it.

Mullarkey: Well, it’s pretty simple. The question was whether the statute that was passed was valid, whether the legislature had the ability to pass the statute that they did, and we thought they did. That’s about it.

She was also asked about the Clear the Bench Colorado campaign, which urges voters to vote against Mullarkey and Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice.

Warner: There’s a movement afoot called Clear the Bench, and they have a campaign not to retain you on the court and other members of the state Supreme Court. Did that affect your decision to step down?

Mullarkey: I just decided to retire. And that’s just a simple decision. I’m 66 years old and I wanted to do all the things a retired person does.

Mary Mullarkey

By Matt Masich, LAW WEEK COLORADO

DENVER — One represented New Life Church when it rid itself of Ted Haggard. Another was a two-term governor of Ohio. A third will soon take part in a 3,000-mile bike race across the U.S.

What do they have in common? In a few months, they and a dozen others will compile a short list of lawyers, one of whom the governor will pick to become Colorado’s newest justice on the state’s high court.

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission will meet in August to pick three potential Colorado Supreme Court justices. It will likely have until Sept. 1 to hand its list to Gov. Bill Ritter, who will have 15 days to choose one to replace Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who retires Nov. 30.

The 15-member commission is composed of a lawyer and a non-lawyer from each of Colorado’s seven Congressional districts, as well as an at-large non-lawyer. The chief justice is an additional non-voting member of the group.

Commissioners serve six-year terms. Lawyer members are selected by the governor, attorney general and chief justice; non-lawyer members are selected by the governor.

Here’s a look at the justice-makers.

Lawyers
1st CD: Richard Holme, unaffilliated. Holme, a partner at Denver’s Davis Graham & Stubbs, has been a litigator in Colorado for more than 40 years. A member of the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers since 1983, Holme has also served six terms on the Colorado Bar Association’s Board of Governors and two terms on the Colorado Supreme Court’s Grievance Committee.

2nd CD: S. Lamar Sims, Democrat. Sims is chief deputy district attorney in the Denver DA’s office. Sims, who has been with the office since 1981, has taught at the Denver Police Academy and Harvard Law School’s Advocacy program. He serves as the office’s liaison to local law enforcement agencies.

3rd CD: Alex Tejada, Democrat. Tejada is a partner in the Durango criminal defense and personal injury firm Crane & Tejada, where his law partner, Bethiah Crane, is also his wife. Tejada graduated in 1975 from the University of Denver College of Law. He was a public defender in Denver and Durango before launching his firm in 1990. He also serves on the 6th Judicial District judicial performance evaluation commission, and was previously on the district’s judicial nominating commission.

4th CD: William Kaufman, Republican. Kaufman represented Estes Park and Loveland in the Colorado House of Representatives from 1992 to 2000.

5th CD: Martin Nussbaum, Republican. Nussbaum is a partner in Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons’ Colorado Springs office, where he helps lead the firm’s religious institutions practice. Nussbaum represents a cross-section of religious groups, including multiple Roman Catholic archdioceses. He also represented New Life Church in its termination of Ted Haggard.

6th CD: April Jones, unaffiliated. Jones is managing attorney at Jones Law Firm, a Greenwood Village family law firm. She has been appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter and Gov. Bill Owens to the Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Board, where she is now vice chair. She is also a board member of Colorado Legal Services, and is past president of the Sam Cary Bar Association.

7th CD: Barbara Glogiewicz, unaffiliated. Glogiewicz, an attorney with Kennedy Childs & Fogg who also holds nursing degree, represents doctors, hospitals, dentists and long-term care facilities in medical malpractice cases. In addition to her trial work, she is managing shareholder of her firm. Glogiewicz was named one of Law Week Colorado’s “Top Women Lawyers” in 2008.

Non-lawyers
1st CD: Romaine Pacheco, Democrat. Pacheco is state director of constituent services for U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. She was previously a staffer for U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar and U.S. Rep. Pat Schroeder. She has also been on the Denver Board of Water Commissioners and served as communications director for the Denver Auditor’s office.

2nd CD: Jay “Drew” Clark, Republican. Clark is a retired math teacher who finished his career at Horizon High School. He was also a one-term state representative from eastern Boulder County, elected in 1992. These days he “ride[s] bikes and read[s] books.” In June, Clark will be part of a four-man team riding in the Race across America. They will try to ride from Oceanside, Calif. to Annapolis, Md. in seven days.

3rd CD: Mary Stengel, Democrat. Stengel is a practicing OB/GYN in Durango. She completed her bachelor’s and doctorate degrees at the University of Mississippi and completed her residency at the San Bernadino County Medical Center in California.

4th CD: Alan Foutz, Republican. Foutz is president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, an independent organization for farmers and ranchers. A native of Colorado’s eastern plains, he holds a B.S. and M.S. in agronomy from Colorado State University and a Ph.D in agronomy from the University of Arizona. He has been a crop science professor and has run his family farm in Washington County, Colo. since 1982.

5th CD: Dick Celeste, Democrat. Celeste, governor of Ohio from 1983-1991, has served as president of Colorado College in Colorado Springs since 2002. He was U.S. ambassador to India during the second Clinton administration and sits on the board of the Independent Strategic Assessment Group, United States Northern Command.

6th CD: Bruce Alexander, Democrat. Alexander has since 2000 been president and CEO of Denver-based Vectra Bank, which has 38 full-service branches across Colorado. Before that, he was executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, and spent the previous 20 years managing other banks.

7th CD: Lynn Johnson, Republican. Johnson is the director of Jefferson County Human Services. Before that she was chief of staff for policy for Gov. Bill Owens and chief of staff for Lt. Gov. Jane Norton. She has also managed the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs and the Head Start State Collaboration Office. She started her career as a probation officer before becoming a mental health specialist.

At-large: Dorothy ”Deedee” Decker, Democrat. Decker, with husband, Peter, owns and operates the Double D Ranch in Ridgway. The ranch, which the Deckers bought in 1974, covers 1,400 acres near the Dallas Divide.

LAW WEEK COLORADO

DENVER — Colorado Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey announced last week she will retire Nov. 30, but the search for a new justice to take her place on the state Supreme Court will not officially begin until August. A successor isn’t likely to be named until September.

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission, a group of seven lawyers and eight non-lawyers, is charged with submitting a list of three high court nominees to Gov. Ritter. The commission has 30 days to submit its list whenever there is a vacancy. Another event that triggers the 30-day period to submit nominees is when a justice doesn’t declare his or her intent to stand for retention by the Aug. 2 deadline. In Mullarkey’s case, the judicial branch said, the commission will most likely start compiling nominees after that deadline is passed.

If that’s the case, the commission will have until Sept. 1 to give Ritter the names of three nominees, and Ritter will have 15 days, or until Sept. 16, to select a new justice. The chosen person would have to wait more two months before assuming his or her place on the court and would not be allowed into the high court’s private conferences.

Mullarkey hasn’t elaborated upon the reason for her departure in the middle of the court’s fall argument schedule rather than during the court’s summer break or upon the expiration of her 10-year term, which is in January.

Though the commission is not expected to meet until August, the judicial branch expects an official announcement seeking applicants to the Supreme Court will be released in the next two weeks.

Colorado Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey

LAW WEEK COLORADO

DENVER — Mary Mullarkey, chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, announced Thursday she plans to retire in November, the Associated Press reports.

Mullarkey, a graduate of Harvard Law School, was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1987 by Gov. Roy Romer, and was in 1998 chosen by her fellow justices to be chief justice.

During Mullarkey’s dozen years as chief justice, the Judicial Branch worked with the Colorado Historical Society and state General Assembly on legislation that will result in a new complex for the appellate courts and state legal agencies, to open in 2013; weathered cutbacks and a budget crisis in 2003; developed statewide case management and e-filing systems; and established an advisory committee for problem-solving courts, which include drug courts and mental health courts.

She was also the author of some of the more controversial opinions to come out of the Supreme Court. In 2003, Mullarkey penned Salazar v. Davidson, which held that the state legislature may only draw new congressional districts once a decade after a new census, and can’t redistrict if a court has already done it due to a legislative impasse. Critics saw this as judicial usurpation of the legislature’s authority. Last year, Mullarkey wrote the opinion in Mesa County Board of County Commissioners v. Colorado, which upheld the “mill-levy freeze.” Critics said the ruling was an illegal end-run around TABOR’s tax limits.

With the announcement of her retirement effective Nov. 30, Mullarkey will not stand for retention in the fall general election. Regardless of who wins the upcoming gubernatorial election, it will be Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter who appoints Mullarkey’s successor on the bench. Mullarkey is one of five appointees of Romer, a Democrat, on the seven-person high court bench; only Justices Nathan Coats and Allison Eid were appointed by a Republican, Gov. Bill Owens.

Whoever Ritter picks to replace Mullarkey will have to face a retention election in 2012.

Mullarkey Announcement

LAW WEEK COLORADO

DENVER — Prosecutors may use hearsay evidence to prove a defendant violated the terms of his or her probation by a non-criminal act, as long as certain provisions are met, the Colorado Supreme Court held in a 5-2 decision Monday. The defendant must have an opportunity to present witnesses and testify on his or her own behalf, the prosecution witnesses who introduce the hearsay must be subject to cross-examination, and the prosecution must reveal the identity of those witness to the defense prior to the hearing.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Loveall, written by Justice Nancy Rice, the court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s holding that prosecutors didn’t give Jeffrey Allen Loveall’s defense counsel a fair chance to challenge hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing.

Loveall was on sex offender intensive supervised probation after pleading guilty to enticement of a child and unlawful sexual contact after arranging a tryst with an undercover police officer he thought was a 14-year-old girl. One of the conditions of his probation was that he have no contact with children, including his own. Prosecutors introduced hearsay evidence that he violated that condition by being present when his wife gave birth to their child. The high court held that prosecutors violated Loveall’s due process rights by withholding details of that evidence until shortly before the hearing.

Kathleen Lord of the State Public Defender’s office represented Loveall in the appeal. Susan Friedman of the Attorney General’s office represented the state.

Justice Nathan Coats concurred in part and dissented in part, writing he believes the majority “misapprehends” the scope of a probationer’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, as well as the scope of the statute that gives probationers the opportunity to rebut hearsay evidence.

“Significantly, I believe, this misapprehension leads the majority to articulate a rule permitting the unbridled use of hearsay evidence in revocation proceedings…” Coats wrote.

People v. Loveall

Jean Dubfosky

LAW WEEK COLORADO

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky and Democratic Party lawyer Mark Grueskin are forming a nonprofit group to educate voters about the judicial performance evaluation process in light of an anti-retention campaigned led by Clear The Bench.

Dubofsky’s and Grueskin’s move to form a 501(c)4 organization was disclosed Saturday at the semi-annual meeting of the Colorado Bar Association board of governors. The name of the group wasn’t revealed.

For now, the bar association itself is “on the sidelines” as the anti-retention campaign is concerned, Executive Director Chuck Turner told the more than 100 governors meeting at the historic Stanley Hotel. The board makes final policy decisions on behalf of the 17,000-member association.

Clear The Bench has targeted Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice.

Editor’s note: Read the full story in this week’s print edition of Law Week Colorado.

LAW WEEK COLORADO

DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court released seven opinions on Monday, four of which related to Arizona v. Gant, a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision that raised the standards for warrantless vehicular searches conducted after the vehicle’s occupants have been arrested and secured.

Perez v. People. The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision reversing the Court of Appeals, held that a search of a car glove compartment is unlawful when the driver (Jaime Perez in this case) was not within reaching distance of it and there was no indication that evidence of the offense of arrest would be found in the car. The opinion relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Arizona v. Gant decision. Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey wrote the opinion; Justice Allison Eid wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Nathan Coats.

In re People v. Day. The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision reversing a district court sentence, held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the pattern of sexual abuse sentence enhancer to C.J. Day’s conviction because the jury found Day guilty only of attempted sexual assaults. Justice Gregory Hobbs wrote the opinion; Justice Nancy Rice wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Coats and Eid.

Specialty Restaurants v. Nelson. The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision affirming the Court of Appeals, held that a beneficiary of a workers’ compensation award for permanent and total disability is entitled to an additional lump sum payment up to the statutory cap. The General Assembly increased that cap in 2007, when Stephanie Nelson had already been paid a lump sum for her disability. The court held that the increase was prospective and that Nelson is entitled to an additional payment under the new cap. Justice Hobbs wrote the opinion; Justice Rice wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent, joined by Justices Coats and Eid.

Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc. The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision reversing the Court of Appeals, held that claims for personal injury under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act, begin to accrue for purposes of the two-year statute of limitations at the time the claimant first discovers, or should have discovered, the defect that causes the injury. The court also held that the statute’s notice of claim and tolling provisions preclude equitable tolling under the “repair doctrine.” Justice Alex Martinez wrote the opinion; Chief Justice Mullarkey wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Hobbs.

Pineda v. People. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision affirming the Court of Appeals, held that the heroin evidence obtained from Jose Pineda’s car is admissible because it was discovered pursuant to a valid inventory search of the vehicle. Arizona v. Gant was not applied. Justice Michael Bender wrote the opinion.

People v. McCarty. The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision affirming a district court order, held that the trial court’s suppression of drugs seized from John Jacob McCarty’s vehicle was appropriate. Following the Arizona v. Gant decision, the court found arresting officers lacked probable cause to support a warrantless search or justification for a search incident to his arrest. The court also held that the search did not fall within any recognized good-faith exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. Justice Coats wrote the opinion; Justice Eid wrote the dissent.

People v. Chamberlain. The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision affirming a district court order, held that the suppression of drugs seized from Stephanie Chamberlain’s vehicle was appropriate under Arizona v. Gant. Chamberlain had already been arrested for false reporting, handcuffed and put in a patrol car when officers searched her vehicle and found methamphetamines. The court found the officers had no reason to believe the vehicle might contain evidence relevant to the crime for which Chamberlain was arrested. Justice Coats wrote the opinion; Justice Eid wrote the dissent.

LAW WEEK COLORADO

DENVER — The gigantic mural that for more than 30 years has looked down on the Colorado Supreme Court Law Library will come down next week. The de-installation is to begin Monday morning and is expected to be completed in three to four days.

The late Central City artist Angelo di Benedetto and a team of assistants spent nearly two years painting the mural, “Justice Through the Ages.” The 20 by 150 foot mural featuring people from throughout history who contributed to the rule of law was installed in 1978 in the then-new Colorado Judicial Building, which was recently vacated in anticipation of its demolition this summer.

LVI Services, the company in charge of demolishing the building, erected scaffolding below the mural this week for use by technicians from the art-removal subcontractor, Ship Art. The mural’s 74 panels will be conserved and stored in a warehouse. The state Judicial Branch is still seeking a new place to permanently display the mural.

DENVER — A state judge stepped out of his role as “a neutral and impartial arbiter of justice” by becoming involved in plea negotiations in a criminal case, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday. Because of this, the high court found, the criminal defendant will be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

James M. Crumb, Jr. was charged with criminal impersonation and multiple felony theft and habitual criminal counts; if convicted of all charges he would have faced a 192-year prison sentence. At the last pretrial conference before Crumb’s trial was to begin, Denver County District Judge Robert McGahey, Jr. told him it was his final opportunity to take a plea deal.

After telling the defendant he was speaking “more as a human being than as a judge,” McGahey said he would be forced to impose the maximum sentence if Crumb were convicted at trial, but that he would have sentencing discretion if Crumb pleaded guilty. McGahey later said he was “not going to be a happy judge” if no plea deal was reached.

Crumb moved to withdraw his guilty plea 49 days later, arguing he felt pressured into it. McGahey denied the motion. A three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, though Judge Gilbert Roman dissented in part, holding that Crumb should have been allowed to withdraw his plea.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found that McGahey became improperly involved in the plea discussions and should have allowed Crumb to take back his guilty plea.

“These improper comments appear to have influenced the defendant’s decision to reconsider his earlier rejection of the offered plea and his ultimate decision to plead guilty,” Justice Michael Bender wrote in the Supreme Court’s opinion. “To allow this guilty plea to stand would run counter to the fair and impartial administration of justice.”

Antony Noble of The Noble Law Firm represented Crumb on appeal. The case now returns to Denver District court where Crumb will be allowed to go to trial, or try to negotiate a new plea deal.

08SC884

LAW WEEK PHOTO BY JAMIE COTTEN
Attorneys David Rigsby, left, and Jennifer Schlatter peer down from late artist Angelo di Benedetto’s mural, which, as of now, has no permanent home when the Colorado Judicial Building demolition begins May 3.

By Matt Masich, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — The crowning work of one of Colorado’s most important artists hides in plain sight in the heart of downtown Denver.
Motorists on 14th Avenue might miss it as they drive by, but pedestrians strolling in Civic Center Park sometimes take a detour to get a better view of the enormous mural that sprawls across the ceiling of the open-air first floor of the Colorado Judicial Building.
On any given day, a handful of curious passersby walk beneath the mural, gazing up at the dozens of historical figures that float on the mural’s vivid orange and yellow background. They pick out the more familiar faces — there’s Abraham Lincoln, there’s Martin Luther King — and then move on.
But to some people in Colorado’s arts community and legal profession, “Justice through the Ages” by late Central City artist Angelo di Benedetto is more than an interesting adornment on an otherwise gray government building; to them, it is a treasure.
“Angelo di Benedetto was a giant in Colorado art, and his mural at the court building is definitely one of the finest works of public art in the state,” said Michael Paglia, longtime Westword art critic and author of several books on Colorado artists.
“Angelo di Benedetto was probably among the best, or the best, figure painter in Colorado,” said Hugh Grant, director of the Kirkland Museum of Fine and Decorative arts. “We have quite a number of his paintings, and we have many, many figure drawings by him, some of which are just breathtaking.”
Di Benedetto was “Mr. Art” in Colorado during the mid-20th century, said Steve Savageau, who owns an art gallery in Denver. ”The mural was his masterpiece,” Savageau said.
The mural, also known as “Lawgivers,” will be on public view for just a few more months. The judicial building, the mural’s home for more than three decades, will be torn down this summer to make way for a new courts complex. The mural’s 74 panels are to be removed from their spot overlooking the skylight of the Supreme Court Law Library and be put in storage — artistic limbo.
It’s unknown when, where and in what form they will next be displayed. “All options are open” for the mural’s future, said Bill Mosher of Trammell Crow Co., which is managing construction of the new building.
These options include displaying the mural’s panels separately rather than as a whole mural.
“My obligation at this point in time is to document and secure and store these [panels] so that we leave the options open for their future disposition, whether it’s in the new building or somewhere else,” Mosher said.

Lawyers ‘looking skyward’
Attorney David Rigsby of Denver wants to make sure the mural is prominently displayed when the Supreme Court moves in 2013 to its new home in the Ralph L. Carr Judicial Complex, which is being designed by Denver’s Fentress Architects and will be built on the block now occupied by the judicial building and Colorado History Museum.
Rigsby is enlisting others to join him in encouraging the judicial branch to find a place for the mural inside the Carr complex, or failing that, to help find another suitable place for it. Joining him in the effort is Jennifer Schlatter, an intellectual property attorney with Allen & Vellone who has experience representing artists.
“My hope is not so much to apply legal analysis or legal pressure,” Rigsby said, “but to get some people involved who know their way around the system, to apply some knowhow into roping in people who care about the mural to do the right thing.”
Rigsby, general counsel with Lincoln Trust Co., has art and the law flowing through his veins. His father, also named David Rigsby, was an artist who founded the Evergreen Arts Center; his mother, Linda Palmieri, was a Jefferson County judge. He also has a personal connection to di Benedetto and the mural. Rigsby and his family were friends and neighbors of di Benedetto’s in Central City during the time he began work on the mural in 1976.
“Angelo didn’t paint the mural to be shown in a museum or gallery setting, but to be experienced in a public space where he knew people would be in deep contemplation,” Rigsby said.
“Lawyers rehearsing their oral arguments one last time while they paced beneath the building, law students cramming for the bar in the library, petitioners nearing the end of a long road — for over 30 years people have been looking skyward to calm their nerves, muster their strength, or catch their breath, and Angelo knew their gaze would be met with this.”

PHOTO COURTESY OF PHYLLIS MONTROSE
Angelo di Benedetto spent a year and a half painting the mural.

The artist
Though di Benedetto died in 1992, he has still has many friends and admirers who share Rigsby’s enthusiasm. Diminutive in physical stature, di Benedetto was a larger-than-life figure in Central City and the Denver art world.
Born in 1913 to Italian immigrant parents in Paterson, N.J., di Benedetto got his art degree from the Cooper Union School of Art in New York City and afterward trained at the School of the Museum of Fine Art in Boston. He joined the U.S. Army Air Corps (later the U.S. Air Force) before World War II, and served during that conflict in Haiti and Africa — an experience that spurred a lifelong abhorrence of war.
While in Africa, he met and befriended Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie. This was just one of the many luminaries with whom di Benedetto rubbed elbows: He chatted about reincarnation with Albert Einstein at Princeton, served as foreman on one of Diego Rivera’s murals in Mexico City, and used his own living room to host a performance by experimental composer John Cage.
Di Benedetto’s last stop in the Air Force was at Denver’s Buckley Field in 1946. He stayed in Colorado the rest of his life, heading to the mountains to transform a rundown Central City warehouse into a giant art studio. He was well-loved in his adopted hometown — “you walked down the street with him and everybody knew him,” Rigsby said —and was active in the community. He served as police magistrate in the 1950s and twice ran for mayor.
Di Benedetto was a prolific artist and teacher. He was highly regarded for his abstract paintings, figure drawings, sculpture and ceramics, which were exhibited in museums across the country. A number of his works are now on display at the Kirkland Museum’s downtown gallery and exhibition at the Arvada Center. His art was reproduced in two Life features, Newsweek, The New Yorker and National Geographic.
Di Benedetto was a strong proponent of public art. In 1968, he organized a group of nine artists to create sculptures for Denver’s Burns Park at Colorado Boulevard and Alameda Parkway, some of which are still standing. Former Gov. John Love appointed him to the Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities and gave him an award for his contributions to the art and artists of Colorado.

PHOTO COURTESY OF PHYLLIS MONTROSE
Angelo di Benedetto was aided in the painting by chief assistant Phyllis Montrose and four others.

The mural — then
The mural at the judicial building was by far the largest work di Benedetto painted in his long career. At 20 feet by 150 feet, it was called at its debut “the largest figurative mural in America.”
It was paid for with a $100,000 gift to the judicial branch from retired Denver attorney Otto Friedrichs and his wife, Helen. The Supreme Court justices in 1976 selected di Benedetto from a field of 22 candidates to paint the mural for the judicial building then under construction.
The justices originally asked for a mural depicting the history of law in Colorado; di Benedetto persuaded them to expand the mural’s focus to include the great lawgivers from across the world. The artist and justices pitched ideas back and forth before settling on around 60 people — from ancient Babylonian King Hammurabi to former U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren — to enshrine in the painting. Di Benedetto placed “the spirit of the law” at the center of the mural: a bright geometric design that radiated warm color across the figures.
It took di Benedetto and five assistants 17½ months to paint the mural onto panels at his Central City studio. “Justice through the Ages” was dedicated amid fanfare on Columbus Day 1978.
“The mural is an idealistic concept of people of all races who have contributed to the growth and development of human rights and justice,” read the program at the dedication ceremony. “It is the hope of the artist that this painting will endure and give knowledge and pride to all races for their similar desires for justice and peace.”
Colorado artist Phyllis Montrose was di Benedetto’s chief assistant for the mural. Montrose, a surrealist painter whose works are displayed near di Benedetto’s in the Kirkland Museum, met him as a teenager in the 1940s when he was her teacher. In 1977-78, she drove from Denver to Central City to spend three days a week working on the mural.
It was a labor of love, Montrose said earlier this month. She was paid “$25 a day and lunch” consisting of “weak soup and a thin slice of rye bread.” At night she slept in a sleeping bag on the studio floor.
Di Benedetto drafted each figure and painted the faces, while Montrose and the assistants painted the flowing robes and other details. She remembers painting the curls of Hammurabi’s beard and spending days painting all the feet. The mural was “painted a quarter at a time,” she said, “and one-quarter of the mural filled up all the vertical space in the studio.”
The working conditions could be grueling.
“I developed a stooped squat [painting] all those draperies — up, down, up, down. It was wonderful for my legs,” she said.
Sometimes the justices would drop by to inspect their progress.
“They kept coming up in groups of three or four. Angelo was so funny. He said, ‘Michelangelo had the Pope, and I have the Supreme Court,’” Montrose said.
Di Benedetto’s dog would also prowl the studio.
“There I would be lying under the scaffolding in wads of dust and dog hair, with a large red setter who had gas. I’m painting feet, the dog is gassing me and the justices are hounding Angelo,” she remembered with a laugh.
The work was arduous, but Montrose said she was very pleased with the finished mural.
“If it ever got the public attention it deserves, it’s very important. It raises the masses; it honors them. It has heroes from all races in it,” she said. “I think it’s uplifting for downtrodden people to see themselves given dignity and honored.”

LAW WEEK PHOTO BY JAMIE COTTEN
Supreme Court library assistant Ginger Bilthuis sits in the library beneath the mural. The library closes April 5 and will reopen in smaller quarters in The Denver Post building on April 19. “I love this place. I’m a little bit sad, but you have to let go of the old horse and buggy.”

The mural — now
While di Benedetto hoped his mural would endure to inspire Coloradans, it is attached to a judicial building that Gov. Bill Ritter has called “outdated and obsolete from the day [it] opened.” The state historical society will help the judicial branch preserve the mural while the building is demolished, Mosher said.
“They are helping us with the archival process and the documentation and photography” of the mural panels, he said, but the historical society has declined an offer to acquire the mural.
The judicial branch will put the mural into storage while it works out a plan for its future display. The conceptual designs for the exterior of the new Carr judicial complex don’t include a place for the mural. Interior design of the Carr complex has not begun, Mosher said, leaving open the possibility it will be incorporated there. As the interior design comes together over the next six months, the branch will decide whether there’s a place for it inside the courts building.
But the size of the mural presents challenges. It’s 50 yards long in two parallel lines of 37 panels each, as it’s currently displayed, and would be 100 yards long if the 74 panels were laid out in one line.
“Currently there’s not a single space where the entire mural could be displayed as it is today,” said Fred Schultz of Trammell Crow, who works with Mosher in planning the Carr complex. “We don’t have anything that big or that long, so they would be somehow dispersed throughout the facility if we can find places for it. The best thing would be to find a benefactor or a destination that this thing could be set up in the way it’s intended now, but we haven’t found a home for it.”
Montrose agrees it would be best to display the mural as originally intended. Separating the panels would be a “terrible idea,” she said.
“You can’t break up a cohesive work,” Montrose said. “That would make it into a historical artifact.”
Savageau, who bought most of di Benedetto’s estate, elaborated on that idea.
“Breaking them down into panels — this is not an Enstrom candy. This has a unified structure,” Savageau said. “The whole idea was the spirit of the law in the center of the painting and then the relationship of the spirit of the law to the various adherents to it.”
If the mural can’t be displayed in its entirety at the Carr complex, those who knew di Benedetto said, the next best thing would be to move the whole mural to another place where law touches people’s lives, like a courthouse, law library or law school in Colorado. But to the mural’s fans, that is a fallback.
“I think the approach that best recognizes the historic importance of the mural to Colorado and the law would be to find a way to incorporate the mural into the Ralph Carr justice center,” Rigsby said.