Denver ? The relatively new practice of allowing jurors to submit questions for witnesses during criminal and civil trials, upheld elsewhere in the country in federal courts, is facing a new legal test before Colorado’s highest court.

Attorneys for Yvonne Medina, convicted in a domestic violence case, contend her right to a fair trial was violated because her judge allowed a witness to answer a juror’s question that led to speculative testimony.

The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and Medina appealed. On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court will hear arguments in Medina’s case, the first of two cases scheduled for arguments this week asking essentially the same question: whether juror questions violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Most states give judges the authority to allow jurors’ questions. The practice is banned in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska and Texas, but has been upheld by every federal appeals court that has considered it, according to the National Center for State Courts.

Opponents argue that jurors lose their impartiality when they’re allowed to ask questions.

Supporters argue that judges know how to protect a defendant’s rights, and that jurors are better informed if they are allowed to ask questions.

Former Denver prosecutor Karen Steinhauser was an early opponent of jury questioning but said she now is a strong supporter because judges use appropriate safeguards, including consultations with attorneys before a question is asked and allowing the attorneys to ask follow-up questions.

Colorado gives judges the final say on whether to refer jurors’ questions to witnesses.

In Medina’s case, public defender Tracy Renner says in written arguments that a juror’s question prompted irrelevant testimony by a witness that ultimately was ruled inadmissible.