Christie A. Bachmeyer

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 74.8% yes

  187,974 yes · 63,176 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2015 Interim Survey Report The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) agrees that Judge Christie A. Bachmeyer MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Bachmeyer was appointed to the First Judicial District (Jefferson and Gilpin Counties) District Court on August 31, 2009. She started her career as a park ranger at Yosemite National Park. After law school, she practiced as a civil litigator from 1989-1993, and then worked as a deputy district attorney in Jefferson County from 1993-2009, with her last years there as chief deputy. Committed to the community, Judge Bachmeyer serves on various boards and committees, including her most recent appointment on the Governor’s Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. She has consistently taught and presented in public, ranging from judging high school mock trials to a presentation to the First Judicial Bar on plea bargaining. The Commission reviewed Judge Bachmeyer’s record before making a determination. Such review included a personal interview, observing her in court dealing with a range of cases, reviewing her written opinions, listening to interested parties, and studying extensive evaluation data and comments drawn from attorneys and non-attorneys who had dealings with her as a judge. Responses to surveys came from 40 attorneys, 79% of whom felt she meets performance standards, 15% of whom said she does not meet performance standards, and 5% had no opinion; and 84 total non-attorneys, 87% of whom felt she meets performance standards, 10% said she does not meet performance standards, and 4% with no opinion. Of the non-attorney population, 100% of the jurors responded Judge Bachmeyer meets performance standards. Survey respondents used words such as “professional,” “fair,” “patient,” and “compassionate” to describe her style from the bench. Judge Bachmeyer has a judicial caseload that is currently 40% civil, 15% domestic relations, and 45% criminal. Aware of the increasingly diverse populations coming to her courtroom, she is vigilant that each person is treated equally, with respect, and gets time to be heard. This is critical because the number of pro se parties, those who represent themselves, is increasing greatly and she makes special efforts to explain the law and process in understandable terms, and to avoid unfair results in her courtroom. Her docket is heavy and growing significantly in the number of cases; this is her greatest challenge as a judge. She routinely works evenings and weekends. With an eye toward better and more efficient management, she has fashioned a team approach with district attorneys and public defenders assigned regularly to her courtroom so that expectations are clear. She refers to the caseload as “our docket.” She has put in place procedures, different for civil, criminal and domestic, to move cases forward carefully but expeditiously. Distinctive among the judges, Bachmeyer mentioned she enjoys the intellectual challenge of the law because it deepens her understanding so that she can serve as a better judge. Based on these findings, the Commission unanimously agrees that Judge Bachmeyer meets judicial performance standards.

Surveys & reports

• 2018 cycle
  • 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Christie B. Phillips 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 1st Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Christie B. Phillips Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility Court Section 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, CO 80401 Dear Judge Phillips: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) 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 five 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 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. 4. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. 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 Christie B. Phillips received an overall combined average grade of 3.39 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.32, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.45, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.46 (not shown below). Judge Phillips Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.39 3.32 3.45 Sample Size -- 163 160 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Phillips’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 Phillips Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2009 3.61 3.53 9 3.69 14 2010 3.42 3.60 48 3.24 35 2011 3.34 3.33 57 3.34 52 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.31 3.01 49 3.61 59 Overall 3.39 3.32 163 3.45 160 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 receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.26. 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 Phillips’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 that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Phillips Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.87 83 52% 3.00 77 48% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Christie B. Phillips (Sample Size 163) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Christie B. Phillips Christie B. All District Sample Size = 163 A B C D Fail DK/NA Phillips Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 7% 2% 0% 24% 3.51 3.35 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 7% 2% 1% 4% 3.51 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 52% 24% 11% 5% 0% 9% 3.35 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 26% 12% 6% 1% 3% 3.29 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.42 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 22% 14% 4% 1% 4% 3.28 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 24% 11% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 15% 9% 7% 4% 32% 2.97 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 32% 25% 19% 5% 5% 14% 2.83 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.08 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 60% 21% 13% 1% 0% 5% 3.48 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 54% 17% 11% 5% 1% 12% 3.34 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 65% 22% 7% 4% 0% 2% 3.52 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 68% 17% 7% 4% 1% 2% 3.51 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 62% 15% 6% 9% 6% 2% 3.22 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 17% 9% 7% 2% 9% 3.25 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.38 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 57% 19% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.21 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 63% 19% 10% 2% 1% 6% 3.50 3.33 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 48% 17% 7% 4% 1% 22% 3.38 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.36 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Christie B. Phillips Christie B. All District Phillips Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 21% 23% Completely neutral 38% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 3% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 43% 57% Recommend retain 21% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 15% 9% Recommend not retain 9% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 13% 6% Total Retain 64% 79% Neither 15% 9% Total Not Retain 22% 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Christie B. Phillips Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.32 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.42 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.31 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.51 case after trial. 3.35 3.51 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.41 3.35 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.29 3.24 3.08 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.15 3.28 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.31 3.24 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 2.97 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2.83 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 3.41 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3.48 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.34 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.33 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Christie B. Phillips All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christie B. Phillips 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christie B. Phillips Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.38 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.52 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.49 3.51 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.22 neutral manner. 3.26 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.36 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.21 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.50 being prepared for cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.38 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 30% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 21% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 38% Completely Neutral 49% 8% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 3% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Christie B. Phillips All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christie B. Phillips Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Phillips be retained or not retained in office? 43% Strongly recommend retain 57% 21% Recommend retain 22% 15% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Phillips Judges* Total Retain 64% 79% 9% Neither 15% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 22% 12% 13% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Christie B. Phillips All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Christie B. Phillips (Sample Size 160) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Christie B. Phillips Christie B. All District Sample Size = 160 A B C D Fail DK/NA Phillips Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 68% 19% 6% 1% 3% 2% 3.52 3.66 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 75% 12% 4% 5% 3% 1% 3.53 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 70% 13% 7% 3% 6% 1% 3.39 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 14% 5% 4% 9% 1% 3.28 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.43 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 74% 10% 6% 4% 4% 1% 3.47 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 9% 6% 5% 6% 3% 3.39 3.57 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 8% 1% 4% 4% 33% 3.46 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 72% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3% 3.50 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.46 3.61 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 15% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3.57 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 18% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3.61 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 73% 19% 3% 3% 1% 1% 3.60 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.59 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 59% 22% 9% 3% 4% 3% 3.33 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 17% 6% 1% 5% 6% 3.43 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 70% 16% 6% 4% 2% 3% 3.52 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 6% 4% 4% 2% 3.38 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.46 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 11% 9% 3% 6% 6% 3.31 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 60% 12% 5% 4% 6% 14% 3.35 3.59 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 66% 11% 4% 6% 7% 6% 3.31 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.32 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.45 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Christie B. Phillips Christie B. All District Phillips Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 22% 9% Competely neutral 78% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 1% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.53 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 14% 10% Competely neutral 78% 78% Lenient sentencing total 7% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.41 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 81% 74% Recommend retain 9% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 5% Recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 5% Total Retain 90% 87% Neither 5% 5% Total Not Retain 6% 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Christie B. Phillips Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.45 Overall Average Grade 3.62 3.43 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.52 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.66 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.53 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.39 manner. 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.28 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.56 3.46 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.61 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.47 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.39 case without bias. 3.57 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.46 themselves. 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.50 their case. 3.64 3.59 Q3. Overall Communications 3.70 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.57 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.67 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.61 understand. 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.60 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Christie B. Phillips All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christie B. Phillips 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Christie B. Phillips Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.46 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.33 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.62 proceedings. 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.43 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.52 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.38 little wasted time. 3.54 3.32 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.31 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.35 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.31 relevant facts. 3.56 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.53 Christie B. Phillips 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 0.41 Christie B. Phillips 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. Christie B. Phillips All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christie B. Phillips Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Phillips be retained or not retained in office? 81% Strongly recommend retain 74% 9% Recommend retain 13% 5% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 5% Judge Phillips Judges* 2% Total Retain 90% 87% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 5% 5% Total Not Retain 6% 7% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Christie B. Phillips All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding 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 an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a 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. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding 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 receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district 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 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. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding 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 that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non- attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a 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 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 receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district 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 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. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Phillips 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. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Christie B. Phillips Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 59 15 12 0 32 68.1% Defense Attorneys 104 40 23 0 41 50.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 118 57 13 0 48 45.7% Other Attorneys Civil 150 67 43 0 40 37.4% GAL 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 433 179 91 0 163 47.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 165 89 56 10 10 9.2% Defendant 357 163 167 1 26 13.7% Civil Litigant 195 118 44 2 31 20.5% Other 3 0 2 0 1 100.0% Jurors 144 52 8 1 83 61.0% Employees, including Interpreters 12 4 2 0 6 60.0% Probation Officers 14 5 6 0 3 37.5% Total Non-attorneys 890 431 285 14 160 26.4% Grand Total: 1323 610 376 14 323 34.1% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 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 3259 1426 748 0 1085 43.2% Defense Attorneys 3585 1696 482 0 1407 45.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 25 14 2 0 9 39.1% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2791 1004 327 0 1460 59.3% Other Attorneys Civil 4006 1545 780 0 1681 52.1% GAL 11 0 0 0 11 100.0% Total Attorneys 13677 5685 2339 0 5653 49.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 43 28 12 0 3 9.7% Witness 7172 3752 2195 336 889 17.9% Other 52 29 16 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 2858 1657 623 152 426 19.1% Defendant 16384 7182 8195 112 895 10.9% Civil Litigant 8222 4671 2146 126 1279 21.1% Witness 196 90 49 3 54 36.7% Other 231 105 45 14 67 36.0% Jurors 10278 4073 804 154 5247 55.4% Employees, including Interpreters 567 108 90 10 359 75.3% Probation Officers 432 118 78 1 235 66.4% Total Non-attorneys 46435 21813 14253 909 9460 29.4% Grand Total: 60112 27498 16592 909 15113 34.7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5805 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. 49% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 24% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 26% 10% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 25% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.31 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 23% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 11% 7% 5% 23% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 28% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 6% 5% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 22% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.33 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 18% 6% 3% 2% 14% 3.42 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 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 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 9460 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 11% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.57 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 7% 2% 1% 3% 33% 3.60 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 77% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.61 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.59 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 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 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 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 10% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 87% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    85%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    87%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Christie Bachmeyer 2018 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 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Appellate Judges.14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Results .15 Survey of Non Attorneys .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Performance Score.24 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Christie Bachmeyer, 163 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 124 agreed they had worked with Judge Bachmeyer enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 124 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 3.97 4 3.52 3.47 3.36 3 2.54 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Christie Bachmeyer Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.47 3.36 3.52 3.97 2.54 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 87% 85% 79% 80% 60% 50% 40% 40% 20% 15% 11% 10% 10% 4% 5% 4% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Christie Bachmeyer Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 85% 79% 87% 100% 50% standards No, does not meet performance 11% 15% 10% 0% 40% standards No opinion 4% 5% 4% 0% 10% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Christie Bachmeyer Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.36 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.23 3.54 3.99 2.36 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.59 3.58 3.98 3.00 Diligence 3.25 3.49 3.91 2.66 Demeanor 3.38 3.49 3.98 2.39 Fairness N/A 3.51 3.98 2.29 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 215 0 63 29% 37% Total Non- 810 164 100 15% 16% Attorneys Staff 60 0 26 43% 15% Jurors 137 3 46 34% 7% Other Non- 613 161 28 6% 32% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Bachmeyer, 63 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 40 agreed they had worked with Judge Bachmeyer enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 40 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 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 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 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 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 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 August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 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. 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney 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 Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 6 ## Page 9 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 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 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. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Bachmeyer 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 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.39 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 3.32 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.31 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 3.35 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Christie A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Bachmeyer Promptly issuing a decision on the 13 7 2 1 -- 15 38 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 24 6 3 3 1 1 38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 21 7 4 3 -- 4 39 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 22 11 -- 3 1 2 39 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 8 ## Page 11 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 Bachmeyer 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 3.24 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.5 are similar 3.20 3 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 25 7 2 -- 3 2 39 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 21 7 2 1 3 5 39 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 11 1 1 -- 1 1 15 similar Being fair and impartial to both 22 7 1 3 5 1 39 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 24 7 -- 3 3 2 39 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Bachmeyer 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.59 Communications Overall Average 3.44 3.72 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 3.45 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 30 4 1 -- 1 3 39 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 23 6 2 -- 2 6 39 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Bachmeyer 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.38 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 3.49 Treating participants with respect 3.44 3.22 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 25 7 3 -- 2 1 38 dignity Treating participants with respect 27 6 1 1 2 1 38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 24 5 4 -- 4 1 38 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Bachmeyer 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.25 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.27 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.27 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.22 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 23 8 2 1 3 2 39 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 24 5 4 2 2 2 39 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 19 5 5 2 1 7 39 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Bachmeyer meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Christie Bachmeyer Yes, meets performance 79% standards No, does not meet 15% performance standards No opinion 5% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Bachmeyer, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 2 agreed they had worked with Judge Bachmeyer enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 2 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 16 completed the survey. The response rate was 57% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16th, 2018. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 14 ## Page 17 Results Using a grade scale, where "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 selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 8 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Overall performance as a judge 3.36 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Christie A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Bachmeyer Overall performance as a 2 -- -- -- -- 13 15 judge *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Christie Bachmeyer, 100 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 84 agreed they had worked with Judge Bachmeyer enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 84 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th 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 September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, 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, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 16 ## Page 19 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 opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 17 ## Page 20 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent 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 meets performance standards question. 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 exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 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 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.49 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.55 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.62 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.48 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.39 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 65 9 4 -- 5 1 84 Treating participants with respect 69 7 3 1 4 1 85 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 65 10 2 2 6 -- 85 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 60 14 2 2 7 -- 85 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 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 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.51 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.58 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 3.48 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 3.57 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.56 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 63 14 1 1 4 2 85 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 67 6 2 2 7 -- 84 case without bias Treating fairly people who 41 7 2 -- 3 32 85 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 65 8 3 2 4 3 85 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 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 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.58 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.62 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 3.63 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.49 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 65 12 4 -- 3 1 85 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 63 16 2 1 2 1 85 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 61 11 6 4 2 1 85 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 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 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.49 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.4 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.58 for cases 3.61 3.65 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 3.5 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.46 wasted time 3.51 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 51 25 3 1 4 1 85 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 64 8 1 1 5 6 85 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 66 12 1 1 3 1 84 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 55 13 3 1 4 9 85 Managing court proceedings so that there is 55 19 4 2 3 2 85 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 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 13 0 1 2 3 4 3.54 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.51 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.69 outside pressure 3.56 3.51 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Bachmeyer All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Christie Bachmeyer A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 61 11 2 3 4 4 85 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 64 5 1 -- 4 11 85 pressure Being able to identify and 66 9 -- -- 8 2 85 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Bachmeyer meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge Christie Bachmeyer Yes, meets performance 87% standards No, does not meet 10% performance standards No opinion 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christie Bachmeyer 24

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

• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026