Eighteen months after Colorado legislators changed state law to require that courtrooms livestream most criminal proceedings, Denver District Judge Anita Schutte started her Monday afternoon with a declaration.

“This court doesn’t livestream,” she said from the bench.

The judge issued what seemed to be a blanket rule at the start of the afternoon, before any cases were called. She didn’t make case-specific findings about not livestreaming, as required by state law.

“I think it creates a safety issue for all the people in this courtroom,” she said.

Schutte’s practice stands alone among Denver’s regular criminal courtrooms, The Denver Post found during a four-month review of Colorado judges’ livestreaming practices in the wake of the 2023 law change.

The Post spot-checked which courtrooms were livestreaming once daily over five weeks between November and February — 24 statewide point-in-time checks. The newspaper found that of the 374 courtrooms listed on the Colorado Judicial Department’s livestreaming website, 253 — 68% — livestreamed at least once during those point-in-time checks, which The Post did at different times of day.

The majority of Colorado judges are complying with state law and livestreaming criminal proceedings at least to some degree, The Post’s analysis shows, although day-to-day practices around how that livestreaming happens still vary from courtroom to courtroom.

There remains room for improvement as the courts settle into a what lawmakers envision as new era of widespread livestreaming, advocates and former lawmakers said.

“There are a lot of places that are consistently doing it well and demonstrating they are trying to,” said Elisabeth Epps, a former state representative who sponsored the 2023 livestreaming bill.

“And there are some judges who have decided the law doesn’t apply to them.”

In Denver, Schutte was the only judge with a regular criminal docket who did not livestream at least once during the newspaper’s spot-checks, The Post found.State law requires judges to livestream criminal court proceedings except in a handful of exceptional situations. Livestreaming can be shut off if the court doesn’t have the technical ability or staffing to stream or if the courtroom is closed to the public in person and online.

Judges also can turn off livestreaming if they find it compromises anyone’s safety, a defendant’s right to a fair trial (including violations of sequestration orders) or a victim’s rights — as long as the judge also finds that there is no “less restrictive alternative” to let the public continue to watch remotely while preserving those rights, such as by streaming audio only or turning off the livestream for part of a hearing instead of an entire hearing.

Judges who make those findings and turn off livestreaming must base their decisions “on the particular facts and circumstances of the case,” the law states.

“They can’t just adopt a blanket rule. They have to do it on a case-by-case basis,” said Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.

In court Monday, Schutte said observers were welcome to watch court in person inside Courtroom 5E of the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse, or to attend court virtually through Webex, which allows remote users to login and participate in court. (Livestreaming, by contrast, is like TV: It’s one way, and viewers can’t participate).

A Denver Post reporter who attempted to watch Schutte’s courtroom virtually on Webex was blocked from doing so when she logged in to Webex with her first and last name. Schutte asked whether anyone in the courtroom knew who the reporter was and whether she should be allowed to observe remotely. When no one spoke up in person, the reporter remained blocked online. A second remote Webex user was allowed to observe after someone in the courtroom vouched for them.

Not until the reporter re-labeled herself by adding “Denver Post” after her name did a court clerk allow her to watch the virtual proceedings — and only then after the reporter first turned on her camera so the clerk could “verify” her identity. The reporter did not present identification or a press pass, just briefly appeared on camera.

Schutte, who declined to speak with The Post but issued a two-paragraph statement through a spokeswoman, said both in court and in her statement that turning off the livestream and using the extra verification process for Webex was due to spammers who twice logged in to her virtual courtroom and played “highly disturbing” pornographic videos.

“I have an absolute duty to maintain decorum in my courtroom and to ensure the physical and emotional safety of everyone in it,” she said in the statement.