In those states with a commission process in condemnation, any guess where an appellate court comprised of judges will come down on who gets to make the final call about what evidence is admissible -- a judge or the commissioners?
Well, if you guessed the judge, you'd be right. In Regional Transportation Dist. v. 750 W. 48th Ave., LLC, No. 14SC64 (Sep. 14, 2015), the Colorado Supreme Court summed up the applicable rule of law succinctly: "commissioners have some implicit authority to make evidentiary rulings without the oversight of the trial judge," but "the judge is still the judge," and she gets the final call. Slip op. at 11. So the commissioners cannot "overrule" or "reconsider" a judge's earlier ruling that evidence is admissible, nor can they ignore a judge's instruction that they disregard other evidence.
It shouldn't have been too hard to presage that judges would conclude that judges have the final say (judges, not lay commissioners, are the legal experts, after all), but apparently it was an unsettled question in Colorado. The court had before it two commission rulings: the first granted the property owner's motion in limine to exclude the condemnor's expert from testifying about certain things, rendered after the judge denied the same motion; the second was the commission first determining that certain evidence was relevant, and then later the judge instructing the commissioners to not consider it.
In both cases, the judge wins and has the final say:
Despite the rather complex relationship between the judge and the commission during eminent domain valuation hearings, the two issues presented in this case quickly resolve themselves by reference to a simple maxim: judicial evidentiary rulings control over commission evidentiary rulings.
Slip op. at 9.
Wouldn't you be surprised by any other result?
Regional Transportation Dist. v. 750 W. 48th Ave., LLC, No. 14SC64 (Colo. Sep. 14, 2015) (en banc)
