Ruth M. Acheson
Trial Court · Mineral · Mineral
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Mineral · MineralMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 82.1% yes572 yes · 125 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Twelfth Judicial District Performance Commission unanimously agrees (7-0) that Judge Ruth Acheson MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Acheson on June 9, 2020, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Acheson. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Acheson has demonstrated that she meets performance standards in all categories. Among those responding to Judge Acheson’s judicial performance survey, not a single respondent thought she failed to meet judicial standards: 100% of attorneys responded, yes, Judge Acheson meets performance standards and 100% of the non-attorneys agreed. Her case management, communication, and fairness all received perfect scores (4), while her demeanor (3.9), application and knowledge of law (3.8) and diligence (3.7) received near perfect scores. Her overall score (3.9) exceeds the statewide average for county court judges in Colorado (3.4). Judge Acheson’s opinions reflect her knowledge of the law and her logical and understandable communication style. Her written opinions reflect a logical conclusion for her ultimate decision and ruling. While Judge Acheson has jurisdiction over the full range of cases that may occur in county court, 93% of her cases are traffic, 2% are civil, 3% are misdemeanors, 1% are criminal, and 1% are small claims. Comments from both attorneys and non-attorneys alike were overwhelmingly positive. Judge Acheson received high praise for her fairness, her ability to explain complex legal principles, and for her organization. Judge Acheson appears to be very concerned with treating all participants in the courtroom with respect and dignity. Judge Acheson continues to be involved in her community as an active member of the “Best Practices” team for dependency and neglect cases, as a mentor for young attorneys, and as a volunteer for the San Luis Valley’s Pro Bono Program. Furthermore, Judge Acheson continues to collaborate with the Access to Justice Committee in developing resources for adoption cases. Judge Acheson sees community involvement as a critical component of her judicial role.
- 2016 retention cycleTrial Court · Mineral · MineralMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 79.1% yes442 yes · 117 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends, with one recusal, that Judge Ruth M. Acheson BE RETAINED. Judge Acheson was appointed to the Mineral County Court on August 30, 2012. Prior to her appointment, Judge Acheson was a solo practitioner at the Law Office of Ruth Acheson since 2004, where her focus has been in the role of Guardian ad Litem. Prior to becoming a solo practitioner, Judge Acheson was the Managing Deputy for the local Public Defender’s Office, where she had been an attorney since 1985. Judge Acheson was also the Municipal Judge for the Town of Creede from 2005 to 2013. Judge Acheson received her undergraduate degree in Psychology and Sociology from Colorado University in 1976 and her law degree from the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University, where Judge Acheson was a Wendell Willkie and AAUW Fellow, in 1981. Judge Acheson continues to be involved in her community as a member of the Twelfth Judicial District Best Practices in Child Welfare Committee, the San Luis Valley Family Treatment Court Team, and where she also worked to develop a judicial protocol to address the concerns of the Domestic Violence Offender Accountability Committee. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Acheson, observed her in court, read opinions she authored, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Acheson. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend Judge Acheson be retained in office or not retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey, 80% recommended retention and 20% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 89% recommended retention and 11% made no recommendation regarding retention. None of the survey respondents recommended that Judge Acheson not be retained. A total of 5 attorneys and 9 non-attorneys completed judicial performance surveys regarding Judge Acheson. The vast majority of cases that Judge Acheson presides over are traffic and misdemeanor criminal matters. Based on the survey results of attorneys and non-attorneys, Judge Acheson consistently received ratings which exceed the combined rating of all county court judges standing for retention. The only areas that Judge Acheson scored below the average for all county judges standing for retention was in issuing prompt decisions, giving consistent sentences, providing all parties an opportunity to be heard, and in the categories of diligence and application of the law. Of note, Judge Acheson received a perfect rating from attorneys in the areas of setting reasonable schedules for cases, providing written communications that are clear, and being willing to handle cases not on her docket. Judge Acheson received a perfect rating from both attorneys and non-attorneys in the category of treating participants with respect, and this trait was observed by the Commissioners during their courtroom observations as well. Judge Acheson is recognized for her professionalism, patience, and kindness towards those who appear in her court.
Surveys & reports
- 2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ruth M. Acheson 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Acheson, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.5 3.1 3 2 1 0 Judge Acheson All County Judges Judge Acheson All County Judges Overall Grade 3.1 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 81% 80% 60% 50% 40% 33% 20% 17% 13% 10% 5% 4% 0% Judge Acheson All County Judges Judge Acheson All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Acheson Acheson Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 33% 86% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 17% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 50% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Case Management 3.4 2.9 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.3 Communications 3.6 2.8 Diligence 3.5 3.1 Demeanor 3.5 2.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Acheson All County Judges Judge All County Acheson Judges Case 4.0 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 2.9 3.4 Law Communications 3.3 3.6 Diligence 2.8 3.5 Demeanor 3.1 3.5 Fairness 2.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 3 23% 100% 3 Non- 9 7% 78% 7 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Acheson received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Overall 4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Acheson Attorneys 4 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 4 3.5 4 N/A 2 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.4 4 N/A 3 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 4 3.4 4 N/A 3 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 4 N/A 3 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Overall 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Acheson Attorneys 4 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 2 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3 3.4 4 2.2 7 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.4 4 N/A 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2 3.5 N/A 2 3 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2 3.5 N/A 2 4 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Acheson Attorneys 4 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 3 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3 3.6 4 2.5 9 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4 3.4 4 N/A 2 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.3 3.7 N/A 3.3 6 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.2 3.7 N/A 3.2 6 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Score 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Acheson Attorneys 4 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.9 3.6 4 2.3 9 Treating participants with respect 3.2 3.6 4 2.8 9 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2.8 3.4 4 2 8 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.5 3.5 N/A 2.5 6 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Score 2.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Acheson Attorneys 4 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 2.1 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.6 3.5 4 1.8 8 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.5 4 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 1.6 3.6 N/A 1.6 5 Maintaining appropriate control 2.4 3.7 N/A 2.4 5 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.2 3.6 N/A 2.2 5 cases Managing court proceedings so 2.4 3.5 N/A 2.4 5 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Acheson Score 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Acheson Attorneys Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 2.6 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Acheson Acheson Acheson Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 2.3 3.6 N/A 2.3 6 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.4 3.5 N/A 2.4 5 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 2.8 3.5 N/A 2.8 4 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 2.2 3.6 N/A 2.2 4 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Acheson, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 14 ## Page 15 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 15 ## Page 16 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 13 3 0 3 100% Law Enforcement 6 0 0 0 - Litigant 142 9 13 7 78% Juror 0 0 0 0 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 148 9 13 7 78% Total Respondents 161 12 13 10 83% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 17 - 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.9judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend100%4 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend100%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ruth M. Acheson 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Acheson, 5 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 5 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.9 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Acheson All County Judges Judge Acheson All County Judges Overall Grade 3.9 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 94% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Acheson All County Judges Judge Acheson All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Acheson Acheson Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 83% 100% 94% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 0% 4% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Case Management 3.5 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 4.0 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.9 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.8 Judge Acheson All County Judges Judge All County Acheson Judges Case 4.0 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.8 3.3 Law Communications 4.0 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.9 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 4 25% 75% 3 Non- 3 25% 67% 2 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Acheson received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Overall 4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Acheson Attorneys 4 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 4 3.6 4 4.0 5 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.5 4 4.0 5 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 4 3.5 4 4.0 5 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 4 4.0 5 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Acheson Attorneys 3.7 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 4 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.8 3.4 3.7 4 5 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.7 3.1 3.7 N/A 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.7 N/A 4 2 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.7 N/A 4 2 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Overall 4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Acheson Attorneys 4 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 4 3.6 4 4.0 5 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4 3.3 4 N/A 2 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Acheson Attorneys 3.9 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 5 dignity Treating participants with 4 3.5 4 4.0 5 respect Conducting his/her courtroom in 4 3.3 4 4.0 5 a neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Acheson Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Acheson Attorneys 3.6 Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 4.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge County Judge Acheson Number of Acheson Judges Acheson Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 3 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Acheson Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Acheson Attorneys Judge Acheson Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Acheson Acheson Acheson Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Acheson, 5 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 5 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 15 ## Page 16 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 16 4 0 3 75% Staff 12 3 0 2 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 12 3 0 2 67% Total Respondents 28 7 0 5 71% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 17
- 2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Ruth M. Acheson 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 12th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Ruth M. Acheson Mineral County Courthouse PO Box 337 North First St. Creede, CO 81130 Dear Judge Acheson: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance. Due to insufficient survey responses, your non-attorney results are not included in this report. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Judge Ruth M. Acheson received an average grade of 3.66 among attorney respondents. The results to the non-attorney survey are not shown below due to insufficient responses among this group. Judge Acheson Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade NA 3.66 NA Sample Size -- 9 -- Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Acheson’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Acheson Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 NA 3.66 9 NA NA Overall NA 3.66 9 NA NA Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Ruth M. Acheson (Sample Size 9) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Ruth M. Acheson Ruth M. All County Sample Size = 9 A B C D Fail DK/NA Acheson Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 33% 11% 11% 0% 0% 44% 3.40 3.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.89 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 44% 11% 0% 0% 0% 44% 3.80 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 78% 11% 0% 0% 0% 11% 3.88 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.74 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 78% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.78 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 67% 22% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3.56 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 67% 11% 0% 0% 0% 22% 3.86 3.00 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 33% 33% 17% 0% 0% 17% 3.20 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.60 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 78% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 0% 11% 0% 0% 44% 3.60 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.64 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.89 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.78 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 56% 22% 11% 0% 0% 11% 3.50 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.71 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 11% 22% 0% 0% 11% 3.38 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 67% 0% 11% 0% 0% 22% 3.71 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.59 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.66 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Ruth M. Acheson Ruth M. All County Acheson Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 30% Completely neutral 67% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 17% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 17% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 78% 53% Recommend retain 22% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 0% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 77% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 0% 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 3 ## Page 7 Judge Ruth M. Acheson Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.66 Overall Average Grade 3.32 3.74 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.40 case after trial. 3.54 3.89 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.47 3.80 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.88 3.37 3.60 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.78 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.30 3.56 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.86 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.00 3.20 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.31 when circumstances are similar. 3.64 Q3. Overall Communication 3.43 3.67 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.52 the proceedings. 3.60 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Ruth M. Acheson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Ruth M. Acheson 4 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 8 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Ruth M. Acheson Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.71 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.67 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.42 3.89 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.78 neutral manner. 3.18 3.50 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.59 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.67 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.38 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.71 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 67% Completely Neutral 50% 17% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 17% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Ruth M. Acheson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Ruth M. Acheson Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Acheson be retained or not retained in office? 78% Strongly recommend retain 53% 22% Recommend retain 24% 0% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Acheson Judges* Total Retain 100% 77% 0% Neither 0% 9% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 0% 14% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ruth M. Acheson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 6 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 11 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 8 ## Page 12 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 9 ## Page 13 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges [Please Note: Due to insufficient survey responses, the non-attorney results for Judge Ruth M. Acheson are not in this report.] a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 10 ## Page 14 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 11 ## Page 15 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey 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 and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. 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. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Acheson is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 12 ## Page 16 Judge Ruth M. Acheson Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 7 3 1 0 3 50.0% Defense Attorneys 12 3 3 0 6 66.7% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 4 4 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 23 10 4 0 9 47.4% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 13 ## Page 17 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 1379 481 441 0 457 48.7% Defense Attorneys 5475 1992 1436 0 2047 50.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 17 5 4 0 8 61.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 236 78 66 0 92 54.1% Other Attorneys Civil 1109 325 393 0 391 54.6% Total Attorneys 8216 2881 2340 0 2995 51.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 180 101 60 12 7 5.8% Witness 3505 2059 941 134 371 14.5% Other 338 222 83 9 24 9.4% Law Enforcement 3520 2713 368 73 366 11.6% Defendant 15714 7550 6831 179 1154 13.0% Civil Litigant 5005 2657 1633 104 611 18.1% Witness 629 340 133 17 139 28.0% Other 9 8 0 0 1 11.1% Jurors 4706 2082 550 95 1979 47.6% Employees, including Interpreters 419 115 52 0 252 68.7% Probation Officers 332 92 82 0 158 63.2% Total Non-attorneys 34357 17939 10733 623 5062 21.4% Grand Total: 42573 20820 13073 623 8057 27.3% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 14 ## Page 18 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 2995 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 15% 5% 2% 1% 25% 3.54 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 21% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.47 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 51% 19% 7% 2% 2% 19% 3.43 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 23% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 18% 10% 6% 6% 22% 3.00 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 52% 23% 10% 3% 3% 10% 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 17% 7% 3% 2% 27% 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 18% 11% 6% 6% 1% 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 21% 10% 4% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 53% 22% 9% 3% 4% 9% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 16% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 15 ## Page 19 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 53% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 77% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 16 ## Page 20 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5062 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 17% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.54 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.48 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 16% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 14% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 14% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.45 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 11% 3% 2% 4% 26% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.50 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 14% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 18% 7% 3% 2% 4% 3.48 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.54 4d.Being prepared for cases. 70% 14% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.58 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 19% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% 12% 5% 2% 4% 18% 3.45 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 14% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 17 ## Page 21 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 13% Average 0.1 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 84% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 18 ## Page 22 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 23 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 24 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 25 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D 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 “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 26 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Ruth M. Acheson 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ruth M. Acheson, 22 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 14 agreed they had worked with Judge Acheson enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 14 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.63 Attorneys 3.70 Total Non-Attorneys 3.59 Juror N/A Non-Attorney Other* 3.59 Table 1 Judge Ruth M. Acheson Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.63 3.70 3.59 N/A 3.59 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 85% Attorneys 80% Total Non-Attorneys 89% Juror N/A Non-Attorney Other 89% Table 2 Judge Ruth M. Acheson Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 85% 80% 89% N/A 89% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Ruth M. Acheson Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.72 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.61 3.37 N/A 3.37 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.80 3.81 N/A 3.81 Diligence 3.63 3.36 N/A 3.36 Demeanor 3.73 3.81 N/A 3.81 Fairness N/A 3.61 N/A 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 15 0 5 53% 38% Total Non- 132 40 9 15% 36% Attorneys Staff 5 0 3 80% 25% Jurors 0 0 0 NA NA Other Non- 127 40 6 11% 40% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Acheson, 8 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 5 agreed they had worked with Judge Acheson enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 5 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Ruth M. Acheson be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Ruth M. Acheson Total Retain 80% Neither 20% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 60% 60% 40% 20% 20% 20% 12% 8% 6% 8% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Acheson All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Acheson on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.72 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.33 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.60 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 6 Case Management Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 5 Acheson Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 20% 20% -- -- -- 60% 3.50 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 20% 40% -- -- -- 40% 3.33 3.46 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.72 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Acheson on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.61 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.50 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.80 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.25 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.60 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 5 Acheson Judges Being able to identify and analyze 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 50% 25% 25% -- -- -- 3.25 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 40% 40% -- -- -- 20% 3.50 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.61 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Acheson on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.80 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 4.00 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 8 Communications Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 5 Acheson Judges Making sure all participants 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 20% -- -- -- -- 80% 4.00 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.80 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Acheson on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 3.73 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.60 3.39 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 9 Demeanor Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 5 Acheson Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.73 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Acheson on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.63 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.60 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 10 Diligence Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 5 Acheson Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 40% 60% -- -- -- -- 3.40 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 60% -- -- -- -- 40% 4.00 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.63 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Acheson in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 54% 50% 40% 28% 25% 25% 20% 11% 6% 1% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Acheson All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ruth M. Acheson, 14 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 9 agreed they had worked with Judge Acheson enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 9 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 16 ## Page 19 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Acheson be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Ruth M. Acheson Total Retain 89% Neither 11% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 78% 80% 71% 60% 40% 16% 20% 11% 11% 5% 3% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Acheson All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.81 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.67 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.75 3.64 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.89 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 12 Demeanor Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Acheson Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.61 Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 75% 25% -- -- -- -- 3.75 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 89% -- -- 11% -- -- 3.67 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.81 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.61 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.78 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.62 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.56 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 13 Fairness Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Acheson Judges Giving participants an opportunity 78% 11% -- -- 11% -- 3.44 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 78% 11% -- 11% -- -- 3.56 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 78% -- -- 11% -- 11% 3.62 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 78% 22% -- -- -- -- 3.78 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.61 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.81 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.89 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.89 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 14 Communications Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Acheson Judges Making sure all participants 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.81 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.36 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.62 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.88 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.33 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.44 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 15 Diligence Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Acheson Judges Beginning court on time 78% -- 11% -- 11% -- 3.33 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 78% 11% -- -- 11% -- 3.44 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 67% 22% -- -- 11% -- 3.33 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 78% 11% -- -- -- 11% 3.88 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 67% 11% 11% -- -- 11% 3.62 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.36 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.37 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.33 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.75 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Acheson Table 16 Application of Law Judge Ruth M. Acheson All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Acheson Judges Giving reasons for rulings 78% -- -- -- 11% 11% 3.50 3.56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 22% -- -- -- 11% 3.75 3.54 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 67% 22% -- -- 11% -- 3.33 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.37 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Acheson is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Acheson is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 78% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 11% 11% 4% 7% 5% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Acheson All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Acheson are. If you feel Judge Acheson generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 78% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 11% 11% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Acheson All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ruth M. Acheson 25
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026