Michelle Ann Amico

Evaluation history

• 2026 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

  Commission vote: 8 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
  Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance agrees by a vote of 8-0, with one member absent and one vacancy on the Commission, that Judge Michelle Ann Amico MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Amico serves as a District Court Judge presiding over civil, probate and criminal matters and she is also the Chief Judge of the district. After meeting with Judge Amico, reviewing her work, and assessing feedback from attorneys and non-attorneys, the Commission was unanimous that Judge Amico meets judicial performance standards. All of Judge Amico’s work is exceptional and she consistently exceeds performance standards. Judge Amico treats everyone who appears before her with dignity, respect and impartiality. Her courtroom is reflective of the personable yet dignified image she projects. She manages her courtroom efficiently, is always prepared, affords participants opportunity to be heard and applies procedural rules and legal standards consistently, promoting fairness and predictability. Judge Amico has a strong grasp of the law and issues understandable and well-reasoned rulings. Judge Amico is described as a tremendous leader who leads by example, and the Commission commends her ability to balance her judicial duties and vast administrative responsibilities while maintaining a high bar of excellence. Based on these findings, the Commission recommends Judge Amico meets performance standards and should be retained. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Amico, 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 Amico. Attorney and non-attorney respondents, although low in response numbers, found no performance issues in any evaluation criteria. This was consistent with the Commission’s overall findings. Judge Amico was appointed to the District Court bench in 2012. Prior to her appointment, Judge Amico served as a Deputy District Attorney and Chief Deputy District Attorney in Denver. In July 2018, Judge Amico was appointed Chief Judge of the 18th Judicial District. She earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Arizona in 1989 and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1993. Judge Amico is a strong proponent of mentoring, community service and furthering judicial education. She volunteers her time with community organizations whose causes she is passionate about, such as the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network and Be The Reason Charities; volunteers annually for high school mock trial competitions and Bring Your Kids to Work Day; is the Dean of New Judge Orientation and sits on numerous statewide committees. Judge Amico was honored by the Colorado Judicial Institute as the 2022 District Court Judge of the Year and was the recipient of the Colorado Judicial Branch’s Excellence in Leadership Award in 2025.
• 2020 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

  Commission vote: 9 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 75.1% yes

  370,795 yes · 123,208 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 9-0, with one Commissioner absent from voting, that Chief Judge Michelle Ann Amico MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. In addition to her administrative responsibilities for the 18th Judicial District, Chief Judge Amico presides over a full criminal and probate (including mental health) docket.  Chief Judge Amico was assigned a post-conviction death penalty case in 2016, which significantly added to her workload.  Chief Judge Amico’s demeanor is described as compassionate, pleasant, patient and respectful.  She is known as fair and works hard to prepare for her cases.  She has strong organizational and leadership skills.  Relevant stakeholders commented Chief Judge Amico is collaborative on courthouse management issues and committed to ensuring equal access to justice for everyone involved in the judicial process.  She has maintained steadfast leadership of the largest judicial district in the State of Colorado during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Her oral and written rulings are clear and concise. C hief Judge Amico stays current on the law by reviewing opinions issued by the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court on a weekly basis.  Overall, the commission commends Chief Judge Amico for her hard-work.  Based on these findings, the Commission agreed Chief Judge Amico meets performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Chief Judge Amico, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys as well as interviewed members of the District Attorneys, Probation, and Public Defenders departments.  The surveys reflected personal opinions on Chief Judge Amico’s Case Management, Application and Knowledge of the Law, Communications, Diligence, Demeanor and Fairness.  Of the forty-seven (47) completed surveys returned, Chief Judge Amico achieved an overall performance rating of 3.9 out of a possible 4.0. Her ratings for meeting performance standards from attorneys was 95% and 100% from non-attorneys.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 65.0% yes

  183,629 yes · 98,737 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Michelle Ann Amico BE RETAINED. Judge Amico was appointed to the district court bench in 2012.  She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Arizona in 1989 and a J.D. from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1993.  Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Amico served as the Chief Deputy District Attorney in Denver, where she acted as a prosecutor and directed the Family Violence Unit, County Court Division, District Court, Juvenile Division and Gang Unit and intake Division.  Judge Amico believes strongly in community service.  She substitute teaches criminal law and procedure on occasion at the University of Denver College of Law, and also teaches Continuing Legal Education classes for the Colorado Bar Association.  In 2014, she taught an evidence practicum for the Family Law Bar and appeared in a panel discussion of gender-based violence in the legal system.  She has judged regional high school mock trial competitions for the last two years and mentors an average of three interns each semester.  She has volunteered with the Race for the Cure for the last three years, with the Littleton Public Schools for the past two years, and with Catholic Charities for more than 15 years.   Before recommending retention of Judge Amico, the Commission conducted extensive research, including meeting personally with her, reviewing surveys conducted on the judge, interviewing people involved in the courtroom, studying Judge Amico’s personal self-evaluation and rulings, and conducting personal observations in the courtroom.  Surveys praise her demeanor, describing her as intelligent, responsive, consistent, courteous and well-prepared.  The 40 attorneys who responded to the surveys gave Judge Amico higher-than-average marks on overall case management, application and knowledge of the law, communication, demeanor, and diligence. Eighty-eight percent of the attorneys recommended that she be retained on the bench, 8% recommended she not be retained, and 5% made no recommendation.  Of the 35 non-attorneys who responded to the survey, 76% recommended that she be retained, 12% recommended that she not be retained, and 12% made no recommendation.  It should be noted that although 12% of non-attorneys recommended non-retention, all comments about Judge Amico from non-attorneys were positive, many of them extremely positive.  (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) Judge Amico is relatively new to the bench, and although she comes from a strong background in criminal law, she has made the transition well to hearing domestic cases.  The Commission sees Judge Amico as a strong judge who is dedicated to learning and whose performance will only improve over time.  It is anticipated that she will continue to learn and grow when she takes over a mixed docket of both criminal and civil law in July of this year.

Surveys & reports

• 2026 cycle
  • 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Michelle A. Amico 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C 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 Michelle A. Amico, 83 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 64 agreed they had worked with Judge Amico enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 64 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 Figure 1 4.00 3.81 3.84 3.97 3.70 3.68 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Michelle A. Amico Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.81 3.70 3.84 3.97 3.68 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 85% 86% 83% 80% 80% 75% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Michelle A. Amico Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 80% 75% 85% 86% 83% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Michelle A. Amico Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.83 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.42 3.79 3.96 3.57 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.79 3.93 4.00 3.85 Diligence 3.69 3.83 3.92 3.72 Demeanor 3.75 3.82 3.97 3.63 Fairness N/A 3.83 3.98 3.64 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 45 0 12 27% 0% Total Non- 484 15 71 15% 27% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 91 1 29 32% 7% Other Non- 393 14 42 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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Amico, 12 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 12 agreed they had worked with Judge Amico enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 12 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 “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 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 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 of judicial performance 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Michelle A. Amico be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Michelle A. Amico Total Retain 75% Neither 25% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 59% 60% 40% 25% 21% 20% 8% 9% 6% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.83 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.83 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.82 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.92 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 6 Case Management Judge Michelle A. All Amico Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Amico Judges Responses: 12 Promptly issuing a decision on the 75% 17% -- -- -- 8% 3.82 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 75% 17% -- -- -- 8% 3.82 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 83% 17% -- -- -- -- 3.83 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.83 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.42 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.42 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.83 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.14 are similar 3.50 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.58 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 12 Amico Judges Being able to identify and 75% 25% -- -- -- -- 3.75 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 58% 42% -- -- -- -- 3.58 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 42% 25% 17% 8% 8% -- 2.83 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 58% 25% 17% -- -- -- 3.42 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.42 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.79 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.64 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 8 Communications Judge Michelle A. Amico Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Number of Responses: 12 Judges Making sure all participants 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 75% 8% -- 8% -- 8% 3.64 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.79 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.75 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.42 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.92 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Michelle A. Amico Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Judges Number of Responses: 12 Giving proceedings a sense of 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 67% 17% 8% 8% -- -- 3.42 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.75 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.69 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 3.83 3.35 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.67 3.20 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 10 Diligence Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 12 Amico Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 67% 25% 8% -- -- -- 3.58 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 75% 17% 8% -- -- -- 3.67 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 83% 17% -- -- -- -- 3.83 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.69 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Amico in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 50% 48% 40% 29% 25% 25% 20% 11% 8% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Michelle A. Amico, 71 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 52 agreed they had worked with Judge Amico enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 52 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 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 June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 15 ## Page 18 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. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of quest ions 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 16 ## Page 19 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 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 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Amico be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Michelle A. Amico Total Retain 85% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 8% Figure 10 100% 85% 80% 69% 60% 40% 16% 20% 8% 6% 8% 6% 3% 0% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.82 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.82 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.80 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.86 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 12 Demeanor Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 49 Amico Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 82% 12% 4% -- -- 2% 3.80 3.68 Treating participants with respect 86% 10% 2% -- -- 2% 3.86 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 82% 14% -- 2% -- 2% 3.80 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 84% 10% 4% -- -- 2% 3.82 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.82 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.83 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.85 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.97 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.76 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 13 Fairness Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Number of Responses: 49 Judges Giving participants an 86% 12% -- -- -- 2% 3.88 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 88% 4% 2% -- 4% 2% 3.76 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 64% 2% -- -- -- 34% 3.97 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 82% 10% 2% -- -- 6% 3.85 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.83 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.78 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said 3.96 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.90 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.94 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 14 Communications Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 49 Amico Judges Making sure all participants understand the 90% 6% -- -- -- 4% 3.94 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 86% 10% -- -- -- 4% 3.90 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 94% 4% -- -- -- 2% 3.96 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.83 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.78 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.84 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.88 3.65 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.85 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.85 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 15 Diligence Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 49 Amico Judges Beginning court on time 80% 14% -- -- -- 6% 3.85 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 84% 10% 2% -- -- 4% 3.85 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 84% 12% -- -- -- 4% 3.88 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 78% 10% 2% -- -- 10% 3.84 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 76% 22% -- -- -- 2% 3.78 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.83 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.79 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.79 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.80 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 16 Application of Law Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Number of Responses: 48 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 78% 12% 2% -- -- 8% 3.83 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 80% 6% -- 4% -- 10% 3.80 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 80% 10% 2% 2% -- 6% 3.79 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.79 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Amico is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Amico is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 88% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 2% 4% 2% 6% 6% 5% 2% 4% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico are. If you feel Judge Amico generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 82% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 9% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 25
  • 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Michelle A. Amico 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C 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 Michelle A. Amico, 83 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 64 agreed they had worked with Judge Amico enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 64 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 Figure 1 4.00 3.81 3.84 3.97 3.70 3.68 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Michelle A. Amico Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.81 3.70 3.84 3.97 3.68 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 85% 86% 83% 80% 80% 75% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Michelle A. Amico Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 80% 75% 85% 86% 83% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Michelle A. Amico Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.83 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.42 3.79 3.96 3.57 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.79 3.93 4.00 3.85 Diligence 3.69 3.83 3.92 3.72 Demeanor 3.75 3.82 3.97 3.63 Fairness N/A 3.83 3.98 3.64 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 45 0 12 27% 0% Total Non- 484 15 71 15% 27% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 91 1 29 32% 7% Other Non- 393 14 42 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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Amico, 12 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 12 agreed they had worked with Judge Amico enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 12 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 “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 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 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 of judicial performance 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Michelle A. Amico be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Michelle A. Amico Total Retain 75% Neither 25% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 59% 60% 40% 25% 21% 20% 8% 9% 6% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.83 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.83 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.82 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.92 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 6 Case Management Judge Michelle A. All Amico Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Amico Judges Responses: 12 Promptly issuing a decision on the 75% 17% -- -- -- 8% 3.82 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 75% 17% -- -- -- 8% 3.82 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 83% 17% -- -- -- -- 3.83 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.83 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.42 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.42 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.83 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.14 are similar 3.50 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.58 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 12 Amico Judges Being able to identify and 75% 25% -- -- -- -- 3.75 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 58% 42% -- -- -- -- 3.58 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 42% 25% 17% 8% 8% -- 2.83 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 58% 25% 17% -- -- -- 3.42 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.42 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.79 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.64 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 8 Communications Judge Michelle A. Amico Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Number of Responses: 12 Judges Making sure all participants 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 75% 8% -- 8% -- 8% 3.64 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.79 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.75 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.42 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.92 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Michelle A. Amico Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Judges Number of Responses: 12 Giving proceedings a sense of 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 67% 17% 8% 8% -- -- 3.42 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.75 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico 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 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.69 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 3.83 3.35 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.67 3.20 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 10 Diligence Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 12 Amico Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 67% 25% 8% -- -- -- 3.58 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 75% 17% 8% -- -- -- 3.67 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 83% 17% -- -- -- -- 3.83 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.69 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Amico in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 50% 48% 40% 29% 25% 25% 20% 11% 8% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Michelle A. Amico, 71 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 52 agreed they had worked with Judge Amico enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 52 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 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 June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 15 ## Page 18 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. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of quest ions 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 16 ## Page 19 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 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 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Amico be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Michelle A. Amico Total Retain 85% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 8% Figure 10 100% 85% 80% 69% 60% 40% 16% 20% 8% 6% 8% 6% 3% 0% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.82 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.82 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.80 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.86 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 12 Demeanor Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 49 Amico Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 82% 12% 4% -- -- 2% 3.80 3.68 Treating participants with respect 86% 10% 2% -- -- 2% 3.86 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 82% 14% -- 2% -- 2% 3.80 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 84% 10% 4% -- -- 2% 3.82 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.82 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.83 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.85 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.97 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.76 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 13 Fairness Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Number of Responses: 49 Judges Giving participants an 86% 12% -- -- -- 2% 3.88 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 88% 4% 2% -- 4% 2% 3.76 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 64% 2% -- -- -- 34% 3.97 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 82% 10% 2% -- -- 6% 3.85 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.83 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.78 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said 3.96 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.90 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.94 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 14 Communications Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 49 Amico Judges Making sure all participants understand the 90% 6% -- -- -- 4% 3.94 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 86% 10% -- -- -- 4% 3.90 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 94% 4% -- -- -- 2% 3.96 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.83 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.78 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.84 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.88 3.65 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.85 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.85 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 15 Diligence Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 49 Amico Judges Beginning court on time 80% 14% -- -- -- 6% 3.85 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 84% 10% 2% -- -- 4% 3.85 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 84% 12% -- -- -- 4% 3.88 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 78% 10% 2% -- -- 10% 3.84 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 76% 22% -- -- -- 2% 3.78 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.83 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.79 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.79 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.80 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Amico Table 16 Application of Law Judge Michelle A. Amico All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Amico Number of Responses: 48 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 78% 12% 2% -- -- 8% 3.83 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 80% 6% -- 4% -- 10% 3.80 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 80% 10% 2% 2% -- 6% 3.79 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.79 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Amico is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Amico is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 88% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 2% 4% 2% 6% 6% 5% 2% 4% 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 Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 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 Amico are. If you feel Judge Amico generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 82% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 9% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Amico All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 25
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.9

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    95%

    34 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    100%

    26 respondents
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Michelle A. Amico 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Amico, 47 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 47 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 Amico All District Judges Judge Amico All District Judges Overall Grade 3.9 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 95% 100% 92% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 5% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Amico All District Judges Judge Amico All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Amico Amico Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 95% 83% 100% 92% standards No, does not meet 0% 12% 0% 6% performance standards No opinion 5% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.9 Diligence 3.4 3.9 Demeanor 3.5 4.0 Fairness 3.7 Judge Amico All District Judges Judge All District Amico Judges Case 3.8 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.8 3.3 Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.9 3.4 Demeanor 3.9 3.5 Fairness 4.0 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 34 40% 68% 23 Non-Attorneys 26 62% 92% 24 In addition to the responses above, Judge Amico 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 Michelle A. Amico 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Amico Overall 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Amico Attorneys 3.7 Judge Amico Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Amico Judge Amico Judge Amico Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.9 27 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 37 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 4 3.4 4 4.0 29 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.4 3.7 4.0 34 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Amico Overall 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Amico Attorneys 3.7 Judge Amico Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Amico Judge Amico Judge Amico Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.9 3.4 3.7 4.0 35 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 15 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 20 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 19 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 16 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 16 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Amico Overall 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Amico Attorneys 3.7 Judge Amico Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Amico Judge Amico Judge Amico Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.9 3.6 3.8 4.0 36 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 19 reasoned Using language that everyone 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 18 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 18 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Amico Score 3.9 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Amico Attorneys 3.8 Judge Amico Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Amico Judge Amico Judge Amico Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 37 Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.8 3.4 3.7 4.0 37 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 19 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Amico Score 3.9 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Amico Attorneys 3.8 Judge Amico Non-Attorneys 4.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 11 ## Page 12 District Judge Amico Judge Amico Judge Amico Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 19 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 19 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 19 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 17 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 17 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 15 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 16 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 16 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Amico Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Amico Attorneys Judge Amico Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Amico District Judge Amico Judge Amico Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 17 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 16 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 16 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 16 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Amico 10 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Amico enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Amico Score 3.8 District Judges Number of Judge Amico Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 3.6 10 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Amico, 47 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 47 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 Michelle A. Amico 15 ## Page 16 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 Michelle A. Amico 16 ## Page 17 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 Michelle A. Amico 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 10 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Amico to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. 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 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. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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 Michelle A. Amico 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 84 34 0 23 68% Staff 42 26 0 24 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 42 26 0 24 92% Total Respondents 126 60 0 47 78% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michelle A. Amico 19
• 2014 cycle
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchheellllee AA.. AAmmiiccoo 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Michelle A. Amico Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac St. Centennial, CO 80112 Dear Judge Amico: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six 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 numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. 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. On average, Judge Michelle A. Amico received an overall combined average grade of 3.46 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.51, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.41, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge Amico Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.46 3.51 3.41 Sample Size - 40 35 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Amico’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Amico Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 NA NA NA NA NA 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.46 3.51 40 3.41 35 Overall 3.46 3.51 40 3.41 35 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.80, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Amico’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Amico Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 0.00 0 0% 3.41 35 100% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchheelee AA.. AAmmiiccoo ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4400)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michelle A. Amico Michelle A. All District Sample Size = 40 A B C D Fail DK/NA Amico Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 30% 10% 5% 0% 5% 3.32 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 68% 23% 5% 3% 0% 3% 3.59 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 55% 18% 8% 5% 0% 15% 3.44 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 20% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.43 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 20% 8% 3% 0% 3% 3.56 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 63% 23% 10% 3% 0% 3% 3.49 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 48% 18% 3% 3% 3% 28% 3.45 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.50 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 75% 20% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3.68 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 65% 23% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3.53 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.61 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 18% 8% 3% 0% 0% 3.60 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 75% 5% 10% 10% 0% 0% 3.45 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 68% 25% 0% 8% 0% 0% 3.53 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 68% 20% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3.51 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.52 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 65% 23% 8% 5% 0% 0% 3.48 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 70% 23% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.63 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 63% 5% 3% 8% 0% 23% 3.58 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.51 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention 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. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michelle A. Amico Michelle A. All District Amico Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 27% Completely neutral 0% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 65% 56% Recommend retain 23% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 8% Recommend not retain 8% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 88% 80% Neither 5% 8% Total Not Retain 8% 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Michelle A. Amico Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.51 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.43 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.32 case after trial. 3.44 3.59 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.36 3.28 3.50 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.56 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.49 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.45 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 0.00 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.61 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.68 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michelle A. Amico All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michelle A. Amico 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michelle A. Amico Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.52 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.60 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.45 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.53 neutral manner. 3.28 3.51 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.56 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.48 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.63 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.58 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.43 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 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 27% 0% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Michelle A. Amico All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michelle A. Amico Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Amico be retained or not retained in office? 65% Strongly recommend retain 56% 23% Recommend retain 24% 5% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Judge Amico Judges* Total Retain 88% 80% 8% Neither 5% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 8% 11% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michelle A. Amico All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchheelee AA.. AAmmiiccoo ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Michelle A. Amico All District No Michelle A. Judges* Evaluations of Judge Amico = 16 A B C D Fail Grade Amico Judge Amico in terms of overall performance as a judge. 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 88% 3.50 3.46 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchheelee AA.. AAmmiiccoo ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3355)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michelle A. Amico Michelle A. All District Sample Size = 35 A B C D Fail DK/NA Amico Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 11% 9% 6% 0% 3% 3.53 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 11% 0% 9% 0% 3% 3.62 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 63% 20% 0% 6% 3% 9% 3.47 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 63% 17% 6% 9% 3% 3% 3.32 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.49 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 65% 15% 6% 12% 0% 3% 3.36 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 65% 15% 3% 3% 9% 6% 3.31 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 59% 6% 0% 3% 6% 26% 3.48 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 65% 15% 0% 15% 3% 3% 3.27 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.36 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 65% 29% 0% 3% 3% 0% 3.50 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 18% 0% 3% 3% 0% 3.62 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 15% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3.76 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 59% 26% 6% 0% 6% 3% 3.36 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 9% 9% 9% 0% 0% 3.47 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 18% 9% 6% 6% 9% 3.16 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 68% 15% 3% 12% 0% 3% 3.42 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 18% 3% 12% 3% 0% 3.27 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.34 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 9% 9% 12% 0% 6% 3.34 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 6% 6% 3% 6% 15% 3.41 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 3% 6% 3% 15% 6% 3.13 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.29 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.41 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention 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. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michelle A. Amico Michelle A. All District Amico Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 0% 8% Competely neutral 83% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 17% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.50 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 0% 8% Competely neutral 80% 82% Lenient sentencing total 20% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.60 0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 61% 75% Recommend retain 15% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 4% Total Retain 76% 88% Neither 12% 6% Total Not Retain 12% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Michelle A. Amico Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.41 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.49 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.53 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.62 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.47 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.32 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.36 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.36 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.31 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.48 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.27 or her case. 3.70 3.63 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.50 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.62 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.76 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michelle A. Amico All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michelle A. Amico 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Michelle A. Amico Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.34 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.36 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.47 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.16 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.42 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.27 little wasted time. 3.61 3.29 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.34 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.41 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.13 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.50 Michelle A. Amico 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.60 Michelle A. Amico 0.01 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Michelle A. Amico All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 14 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michelle A. Amico Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Amico be retained or not retained in office? 61% Strongly recommend retain 75% 15% Recommend retain 13% 12% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 6% Judge Amico Judges* 0% Total Retain 76% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 12% 6% Total Not Retain 12% 6% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michelle A. Amico All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 15 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District 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 a retention evaluation in 2014 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 a retention evaluation in 2014. 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 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. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District 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 district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention 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 district retention 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 last part of the Attorneys Regarding District 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. 18 ## Page 22 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 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-seven appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district 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 district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. 19 ## Page 23 e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, a questionnaire was sent to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Sixteen questionnaires were returned, though not all 16 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges 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 standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They 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. Other 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 20 ## Page 24 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 District 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 district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention 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 district retention 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 District 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. 21 ## Page 25 The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated 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 Amico 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 District Judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Michelle A. Amico Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Civil Attorneys for Litigants 70 26 5 0 39 60.0% Other Attorneys Civil 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 71 26 5 0 40 60.6% Non-attorneys Civil Litigant 109 60 24 0 25 29.4% Other 3 1 0 0 2 66.7% Employees, including Interpreters 18 8 2 0 8 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 130 69 26 0 35 33.7% Grand Total: 201 95 31 0 75 44.1% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3105 1702 353 0 1050 38.2% Defense Attorneys 4381 2309 386 0 1686 42.2% Other Attorneys Criminal 164 88 10 0 66 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3667 1426 237 0 2004 58.4% Other Attorneys Civil 4136 1945 378 0 1813 48.2% GAL 34 11 2 0 21 65.6% Total Attorneys 15487 7481 1366 0 6640 47.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 55 28 18 0 9 24.3% Witness 5936 3024 1701 304 907 21.4% Other 58 32 13 3 10 22.2% Law Enforcement 5118 2861 1236 140 881 22.7% Defendant 17993 7871 8866 117 1139 12.5% Civil Litigant 8137 4580 1905 149 1503 24.1% Witness 122 51 34 3 34 38.6% Other 221 78 56 8 79 47.9% Jurors 17789 7033 1065 254 9437 56.4% Employees, including Interpreters 1120 450 172 21 477 50.3% Probation Officers 65 19 0 5 41 63.1% Total Non-attorneys 56614 26027 15066 1004 14517 34.9% Grand Total: 72101 33508 16432 1004 21157 38.0% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6640 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. 50% 20% 6% 2% 1% 20% 3.44 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 26% 9% 3% 2% 12% 3.30 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 4% 3% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 10% 6% 6% 24% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 26% 11% 5% 4% 14% 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.50 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 10% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 5% 5% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3.34 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 18% 6% 3% 2% 15% 3.43 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention 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. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District 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 27% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 80% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14517 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 10% 3% 1% 2% 0% 3.73 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 11% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.66 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.68 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 11% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.69 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 71% 19% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.61 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.67 4d.Being prepared for cases. 80% 10% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.73 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 13% 4% 1% 3% 7% 3.63 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 68% 9% 2% 1% 2% 17% 3.67 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 11% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention 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. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District 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 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 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 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges* DK/ Sample Size = 16 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014. 23% 16% 2% 1% 0% 58% 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. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 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 his/her 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 35 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 his/her 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 36 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 he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained 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 his/her 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 him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 37 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 his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A 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 his/her 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. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 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 ## Page 38 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Randall C. Arp ............... A B C D F Barbara L. Hughes ........ A B C D F Jack W. Berryhill............ A B C D F Thomas K. Kane ........... A B C D F Margie L. Enquist .......... A B C D F Thomas L. Kennedy ...... A B C D F Ann Gail Meinster .......... A B C D F Michael P. McHenry ...... A B C D F Lily W. Oeffler ................ A B C D F David Prince .................. A B C D F Tamara S. Russell ......... A B C D F Gregory R. Werner........ A B C D F Chistopher C. Zenisek ... A B C D F 5th Judicial District 2nd Judicial District Frederick W. Gannett .... A B C D F Martin F. Egelhoff .......... A B C D F Russell H. Granger ....... A B C D F J. Eric Elliff ..................... A B C D F Mark D. Thompson ....... A B C D F A. Bruce Jones .............. A B C D F 6th Judicial District Elizabeth Leith ............... A B C D F Suzanne F. Carlson ...... A B C D F John W. Madden, IV ...... A B C D F 7th Judicial District Robert L. McGahey, Jr. . A B C D F Mary Deganhart ............ A B C D F Sheila A. Rappaport ...... A B C D F Charles R. Greenacre ... A B C D F Elizabeth A. Starrs ........ A B C D F J. Steven Patrick ........... A B C D F Michael J. Vallejos ........ A B C D F James W. Schum .......... A B C D F 4th Judicial District 8th Judicial District William B. Bain .............. A B C D F Julie Kunce Field........... A B C D F Edward S. Colt, II .......... A B C D F Thomas R. French ........ A B C D F Jann P. DuBois.............. A B C D F Stephen E. Howard ....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 39 9th Judicial District No Grade 20th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Denise Lynch................. A B C D F Ingrid S. Bakke .............. A B C D F 10th Judicial District Maria E. Berkenkotter ... A B C D F William D. Alexander ..... A B C D F Patrick D. Butler ............ A B C D F Victor I. Reyes ............... A B C D F Judith L. LaBuda ........... A B C D F Andrew R. Macdonald .. A B C D F 11th Judicial District David M. Thorson .......... A B C D F 21st Judicial District David A. Bottger ............ A B C D F 12th Judicial District Thomas M. Deister........ A B C D F Michael A. Gonzales ..... A B C D F Brian J. Flynn ................ A B C D F 13th Judicial District 22nd Judicial District Kevin L. Hoyer ............... A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F Douglas R. Vannoy ....... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Shelley A. Hill ................ A B C D F 17th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr. A B C D F sheet for comments you would like to make John E. Popovich, Jr. .... A B C D F about any of these district judges. Ted C. Tow, III ............... A B C D F Mark D. Warner ............. A B C D F Francis C. Wasserman .. A B C D F Craig R. Welling ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Michelle A. Amico .......... A B C D F F. Stephen Collins ......... A B C D F Paul A. King................... A B C D F Charles M. Pratt ............ A B C D F Gerald J. Rafferty .......... A B C D F Theresa M. Slade .......... A B C D F Elizabeth B. Volz ........... A B C D F John L. Wheeler ............ A B C D F Vincent R. White ........... A B C D F 19th Judicial District Timothy G. Kerns .......... A B C D F Marcelo Kopcow ............ A B C D F 2 ## Page 40 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 41 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4

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

• 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026