COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

Transcription

1 State of olorado Logo OMMISSION ON JUIIL PERFORMNE avid L. n 2008 Judicial Performance Survey

2 pril 30, 2008 The Honorable avid L. La Plata ounty ourthouse 1060 E. 2nd ve., #106 urango, O ear : Every two years the olorado Judicial Performance ommission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2008 survey was conducted by Talmey-rake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 57,000 people statewide who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 12,400 people responded 3,084 to the attorney survey and 9,317 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: ttorney Results & omments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. ttorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. ppellate s & omments: New to the 2008 Judicial Performance Evaluation is a survey of ourt of ppeals judges and Supreme ourt justices regarding the overall performance of district judges. Non-attorney Results & omments: Similar to the ttorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. gain, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. Questionnaires: nd the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 rapahoe, Suite One, oulder, O Phone Fax

3 The Honorable avid L. pril, Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contactt me at ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive irector of the olorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at est regards, Paul. Talmey President enc:

4 ttorney Survey (Sample Size 28)

5 ttorney Survey Grades: Overall and by Section 3.1 Overall Q1. Overall ase Management 3.0 Q2. Overall pp & Knowldge of Law Q3. Overall ommunications Q4. Overall emeanor 3.1 Q5. Overall iligence Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1

6 ttorney Survey Grades: ase Management Q1. Overall ase Management 3.0 1a. Promptly making rulings during trial 1b. eginning court on time 1c. llotting appropriate amount of time for cases 1d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule e. [ivil only] ssisting parties to reach agreement f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.3 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 2.6 1i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2

7 ttorney Survey Grades: pplication and Knowledge of Law Q2. Overall pp & Knowldge of Law a. asing decisions on evidence and arguments b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 2c. [ivil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence 3.2 2g. eing able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2h. [riminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3

8 ttorney Survey Grades: ommunications Q3. Overall ommunications 3.7 3a. Speaking clearly b. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3c. Using understandable language d. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4

9 ttorney Survey Q4. Overall emeanor 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4b. Treating everyone involved politely 4c. Having empathy with the parties involved 4d. Treating participants with respect 4e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench 4f. eing consistent in [his/her] behavior 4g. onducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner 4h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard 4i. onsistently applying laws and rules 4j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4k. Treating pro se parties fairly Grades: emeanor Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5

10 ttorney Survey Grades: iligence 3.1 Q5. Overall iligence 2.9 5a. Making tough decisions when necessary 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules c. oing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases 3.3 5d. eing willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming 3.2 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6

11 ttorney Survey Q6. : How biased do you think is toward the defense or prosecution? avid L. 0.8 s 0.4 s efense Prosecution Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7

12 ttorney Survey Q7. : How lenient or how harsh are 's sentences? avid L. 0.1 s 0.1 s Lenient Harsh Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8

13 ttorney Survey Retention Recommendation % 15% % 16% % 6% 6% 6% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9

14 ttorney Survey 1a. How would you grade on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" 19% 59% % 19% 19% 19% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1

15 ttorney Survey 1b. How would you grade on "eginning court on time?" 5 66% 6 36% 2 25% 1 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2

16 ttorney Survey 1c. How would you grade on "llotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" 46% 55% 56% % 1 9% 8% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3

17 ttorney Survey 1d. How would you grade on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" 29% 58% 58% % 36% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4

18 ttorney Survey 1e. How would you grade on "[ivil only] ssisting parties to reach agreement?" % 1 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5

19 ttorney Survey 1f. How would you grade on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" % % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6

20 ttorney Survey 1g. How would you grade on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" 25% 45% 4 25% % 8% 18% 19% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7

21 ttorney Survey 1h. How would you grade on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" 18% 48% 48% % 3 5% % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8

22 ttorney Survey 1i. How would you grade on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" % 26% 26% 29% 9% 8% 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9

23 ttorney Survey 2a. How would you grade on "asing decisions on evidence and arguments?" % 25% 2 9% 9% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10

24 ttorney Survey 2b. How would you grade on "Giving reasons for rulings?" % 3 25% 25% 9% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11

25 ttorney Survey 2c. How would you grade on "[ivil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" % 16% 9% 6% % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12

26 ttorney Survey 2d. How would you grade on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" 18% % 18% 18% 9% 9% 5% 1 29% 3 38% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13

27 ttorney Survey 2e. How would you grade on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" 46% 55% 5 25% 28% 28% 2 9% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14

28 ttorney Survey 2f. How would you grade on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" 39% % % 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15

29 ttorney Survey 2g. How would you grade on "eing able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" 46% 58% 58% 25% % 9% 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16

30 ttorney Survey 2h. How would you grade on "[riminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" 2 28% 36% 1 16% 18% 19% 5% 5% 4 48% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17

31 ttorney Survey 2i. How would you grade on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" % 15% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18

32 ttorney Survey 2j. How would you grade on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" 39% 55% 55% 29% 19% 2 1 6% 6% % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19

33 ttorney Survey 3a. How would you grade on "Speaking clearly?" 5 75% 76% 3 18% 18% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20

34 ttorney Survey 3b. How would you grade on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" % 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21

35 ttorney Survey 3c. How would you grade on "Using understandable language?" 5 75% 76% 36% 2 19% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22

36 ttorney Survey 3d. How would you grade on "Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned?" 3 46% 46% 46% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23

37 ttorney Survey 4a. How would you grade on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" 5 69% 69% 36% 19% 2 1 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 24

38 ttorney Survey 4b. How would you grade on "Treating everyone involved politely?" 75% 68% 69% 1 16% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25

39 ttorney Survey 4c. How would you grade on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" 5 55% 55% 29% % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26

40 ttorney Survey 4d. How would you grade on "Treating participants with respect?" % % 1 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27

41 ttorney Survey 4e. How would you grade on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" 6 65% 6 18% 19% 2 1 8% 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 28

42 ttorney Survey 4f. How would you grade on "eing consistent in [his/her] behavior?" 46% % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 29

43 ttorney Survey 4g. How would you grade on "onducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" 5 65% % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30

44 ttorney Survey 4h. How would you grade on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" % 19% 1 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31

45 ttorney Survey 4i. How would you grade on "onsistently applying laws and rules?" 36% 59% 59% 29% % 8% 8% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32

46 ttorney Survey 4j. How would you grade on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" 46% % % 19% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33

47 ttorney Survey 4k. How would you grade on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34

48 ttorney Survey 5a. How would you grade on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" 39% 55% 5 25% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35

49 ttorney Survey 5b. How would you grade on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" 36% % 26% 26% 1 1 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36

50 ttorney Survey 5c. How would you grade on "oing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" 4 58% 56% % 6% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37

51 ttorney Survey 5d. How would you grade on "eing willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" 39% 56% 5 29% 18% 18% 1 5% 6% % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38

52 ttorney Survey 5e. How would you grade on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" 39% 4 39% % 29% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39

53 ttorney Survey 6. How biased do you think is towards the defense or the prosecution? Toward efense Toward Prosecution Neutral % 8% 8% 75% 6% 9% 1 5 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40

54 ttorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by are? To Light To Harsh ppropriate % 8% 8% 8% 3 8% 8% 1 8% 56% 5% 5% 5% 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 41

55 ttorney Survey 12. o you recommend that be retained in office or not be retained in office? Strongly Recommend Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Retain in office 16% 1 1 Somewhat Recommend Not Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 16% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 42

56 ppellate Survey (Sample Size 20)

57 ppellate Survey Overall Performance of 25% s 28% 5% 1 5% 65% 55% + + Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1

58 Non-ttorney Survey (Sample Size 54)

59 Non-ttorney Survey Non ttorney Survey Grades: Overall and by Section Overall Q1. Overall emeanor Q2. Overall Fairness Q3. Overall ommunications Q4. Overall iligence Q5. Overall pplication of Law Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1

60 Non-ttorney Survey Grades: emeanor Q1. Overall emeanor 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect 3.7 1c. onducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2

61 Non-ttorney Survey Non ttorney Survey Grades: Fairness Q2. Overall Fairness 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.7 2b. Treating those involved with the case without bias 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3

62 Non-ttorney Survey Grades: ommunications Q3. Overall ommunications a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.7 3b. Using language that everyone can understand c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4

63 Non-ttorney Survey Grades: iligence 3.3 Q4. Overall iligence 3.2 4a. eginning i court on time 3.3 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4d. eing prepared for [his/her] cases e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5

64 Non-ttorney Survey Grades: pplication and Knowledge of Law 3.3 Q5. Overall pp of Law 3.2 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.2 5c. eing able to identify and analyze relevant facts Grade avid L. s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6

65 Non-ttorney Survey : How biased do you think is toward the defense or prosecution? avid L. 0.3 s 0.1 s efense Prosecution Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7

66 Non-ttorney Survey : How lenient or how harsh are 's sentences? avid L s 0.0 s Lenient Harsh Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8

67 Non-ttorney Survey Retention Recommendation % 76% 8 85% % 8% 9% 8% 1 5% 1 8% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided s s Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9

68 Non-ttorney Survey 1a. How would you grade on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" 6 76% 7 19% 16% 18% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1

69 Non-ttorney Survey 1b. How would you grade on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" 7 79% 76% % 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2

70 Non-ttorney Survey 1c. How would you grade on "onducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" 65% % 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3

71 Non-ttorney Survey 1d. How would you grade on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" % % 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4

72 Non-ttorney Survey 2a. How would you grade on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" % % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5

73 Non-ttorney Survey 2b. How would you grade on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" 6 75% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6

74 Non-ttorney Survey 2c. How would you grade on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" 48% 4 49% 15% 8% 9% 3 39% 35% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7

75 Non-ttorney Survey 2d. How would you grade on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" 69% 75% % 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8

76 Non-ttorney Survey 3a. How would you grade on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" 69% 78% 76% % 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9

77 Non-ttorney Survey 3b. How would you grade on "Using language that everyone can understand?" 59% 78% 76% 28% 16% 16% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10

78 Non-ttorney Survey 3c. How would you grade on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" 65% 79% 78% 26% 1 1 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11

79 Non-ttorney Survey 4a. How would you grade on "eginning court on time?" 55% % 8% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12

80 Non-ttorney Survey 4b. How would you grade on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" 59% 78% 7 26% 15% 15% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13

81 Non-ttorney Survey 4c. How would you grade on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" 46% % 5% 6% 15% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14

82 Non-ttorney Survey 4d. How would you grade on "eing prepared for [his/her] cases?" % 8% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15

83 Non-ttorney Survey 4e. How would you grade on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" 56% 6 66% % 9% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16

84 Non-ttorney Survey 5a. How would you grade on "Giving reasons for rulings?" 46% 6 65% 3 16% 16% 9% 5% 6% 6% 9% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17

85 Non-ttorney Survey 5b. How would you grade on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" % 19% 1 1 9% 15% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18

86 Non-ttorney Survey 5c. How would you grade on "eing able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" 5 68% 66% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19

87 Non-ttorney Survey 6. How biased do you think is towards the defense or the prosecution? Toward efense Toward Prosecution Neutral % 7 8 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20

88 Non-ttorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by are? To Light To Harsh ppropriate % 6 1 8% 78% 5% 76% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21

89 Non-ttorney Survey 12. o you recommend that be retained in office or not be retained in office? s 2006 Strongly Recommend Retain in office 76% 8 85% Somewhat Recommend Retain in office 1 8% Somewhat Recommend Not Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 1 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22

90 Methodology

91 Methodology Sample: Survey: The databases of names and addresses of the people who had likely been in each judge s courtroom were primarily provided by the olorado Judicial epartment, olorado istrict ttorneys ouncil and the enver ounty ourts. These three sources provided name and address data in 2005, 2006, 2007 and Starting in the second quarter of 2007, the data was provided quarterly. Where there were low sample counts, this data was supplemented by contacting district court administrators for additional sample of particular types of potential respondents. The data was then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected quarterly starting in epending on the available number of names and the count of already received surveys for a particular judge, either all or a random sample of names were drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges courtrooms. ue to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had appeared. Each person whose name was drawn was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent would be sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent follow-up postcard. If the person did not respond after the follow-up postcard, a second questionnaire and letter were sent and in some instances a second follow-up postcard was sent after the second letter and questionnaire. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney responses, telephone interviews were conducted with attorneys who had not responded to the mailed questionnaires. Over 900 interviews were completed by telephone. 1

92 Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2008 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of,,,, or F () to assess the judge s performance in five different areas. For attorney respondents these areas were ase Management, pplication and Knowledge of Law, ommunications, emeanor and iligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were emeanor, Fairness, ommunications, iligence and pplication of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where = 4, = 3, = 2, = 1 and = 0. opies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The estimated response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. The true response rates are likely considerably higher than shown because of the relatively high percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed in court. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. similar table showing the response counts and estimated cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2

93 Total Sent No Response Undeliverable/ Not pplicable Other Nonresponses ooperation Rate ompletes ttorneys riminal istrict ttorneys % efense ttorneys 1, Other ttorneys rmnl ivil ttorneys for Litigants 1, Other ttorneys ivil ttorneys, Unknown Role % Total ttorneys 5,577 1, , Non-attorneys riminal Law Enforcement 8,170 5,431 1, , efendant 13,787 9,091 3, Victim Witness 1,886 1, Other 5,396 3,532 1, ivil Litigant 6,552 4,390 1, , Witness Other Non-attnys, Unknown Role 5,065 2,598 1, Total Non-attorneys 41,256 26,666 9, , Others ppellate s % Jurors 10,214 4, , Total Other 10,240 4, , Total 57,073 33,558 10, , % 3

94 Results: The results of the Survey are in three main sections: ttorney respondents, ppellate respondents and Non-attorney respondents. Within the ttorney and Non-attorney section are subsections of graphs displaying average grades for each section of the questionnaire and each question and tables showing the percentage distribution of grades. The ppellate section is new this year, and shows the percentage distribution of the grades given by the appellate judges on overall performance. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district judges, and all trial judges for which 2008 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. Percentage istribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. n average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. = 4.00 = 3.00 to 3.33 = 2.00 to 2.33 = 1.00 to 1.33 = 7 to 3.99 = 2.67 to 2.99 = 1.67 to 1.99 = 0.67 to = 3.34 to 6 + = 2.34 to = 1.34 to 1.66 = 0.00 to 0.66 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for district judges surveyed in 2008, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2008 survey. Projectability: Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely olorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for andidate on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%- confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The olorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a selfselecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. 4

95 While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. ommercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance ommissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often albeit not always are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state s judicial system. 5

96 Responses by Type Role Type Total Sent No Response Undeliverable/ Not pplicable Other Non- Responses ompletes oop Rate ttorneys riminal istrict ttorneys efense ttorneys % Other ttorneys riminal ivil ttorneys for Litigants Other ttorneys ivil ttorneys, Unknown Role Type Total ttorneys Non-attorneys riminal ivil Law Enforcement % efendant % Witness Other % Litigant % Other Non-attorneys, Unknown Role Type Total Non-attorneys Others ppellate s % Jurors % Total Others Grand Total: % Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1

97 Questionnaires

98 10. nd what would you say are [Last Name] s weaknesses? 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about [Last Name]? 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office... 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office... 4 Undecided or don t know enough to make recommendation... 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office... 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office... 1 nd why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining [Last Name]? Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. ommission on Judicial Performance ttorney Questionnaire Evaluation of JUGE [NME] Using a grade scale, where an is excellent along with,, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don t know, please circle the number corresponding to on t Know/Not pplicable K/NS). K 1. ase Management: F N/ a. Promptly making rulings during trial b. eginning court on time c. llotting appropriate amount of time for cases d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule e. [ivil only] 1 ssisting parties to reach agreement f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases K 2. pplication and Knowledge of Law: F N/ a. asing decisions on evidence and arguments b. Giving reasons for rulings c. [ivil only] 1 Issuing written findings of fact and law d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence g. eing able to identify and analyze relevant facts h. [riminal only] 2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed K 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case.

99 3. ommunications: F N/ a. Speaking clearly b. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings c. Using understandable language d. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned K 4. emeanor: F N/ a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity b. Treating everyone involved politely c. Having empathy with the parties involved d. Treating participants with respect e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench f. eing consistent in his/her behavior g. onducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard i. onsistently applying laws and rules j. Not engaging in ex parte communications k. Treating pro se parties fairly K 5. iligence: F N/ a. Making tough decisions when necessary b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules c. oing the necessary homework and being prepared for his/her cases d. eing willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters [riminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think [Last Name] is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle 0. ias toward ompletely ias toward efense Neutral Prosecution [riminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by [Last Name] are. If you feel [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle 0. Sentences ppropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. If an associate were assigned to [Last Name] in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? 9. What would you say are [Last Name] s strengths? [ontinued on ack Page] {Question 3d is asked only regarding district judges.} 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case.

100 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office... 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office... 4 Undecided or don t know enough to make recommendation... 3 Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office... 2 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office... 1 nd why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining [Last Name]? Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. ommission on Judicial Performance Evaluation of JUGE[NME] Using a grade scale, where an is excellent along with,, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don t know, please circle the number corresponding to on t Know/Not pplicable K/N). K 1. emeanor: F N/ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect c. onducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her K 2. Fairness: F N/ a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard b. Treating those involved in the case without bias c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case K 3. ommunications: F N/ a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what s going on in the courtroom b. Using language that everyone can understand c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what s being said

101 K 4. iligence: F N/ a. eginning court on time b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases d. eing prepared for his/her cases e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time K 5. pplication of Law: F N/ a. Giving reasons for rulings b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure c. eing able to identify and analyze relevant facts [If you were in [Last Name] s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think [Last Name] is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle 0. ias toward ompletely ias toward efense Neutral Prosecution [If you were in [Last Name] s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by [Last Name] are. If you feel [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle 0. Sentences ppropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before [Last Name] as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what would you tell your friend about [Last Name]? 9. What would you say are [Last Name] s strengths? 10. nd what would you say are [Last Name] s weaknesses? 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about [Last Name]? ontinued on ack Page