Eric Bentley

Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2024 retention cycle
Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 61.4% yes
187,134 yes · 117,720 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance voted 7-0 with three absent that Judge Eric Bentley MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Over this past six-year term, Judge Bentley’s docket has consisted of roughly 45% criminal, 45% civil, and 5% domestic relations cases. He has presided over several high-profile cases that have received substantial media attention and where family and friends of the litigants have attended to observe the proceedings. He is generally regarded as thoughtful, deliberative, and exacting. His written orders are well-researched and issued in a timely fashion. He is not afraid to tackle hard issues if they are properly presented for decision. He is an excellent communicator and has an even, measured judicial temperament. While he received some criticism from a few criminal attorneys that he does not manage his criminal docket well, those comments were decidedly the minority view. When necessary, Judge Bentley works late and over the weekend to ensure he is meeting his own high standards of excellence and providing attorneys and litigants with thoughtful, carefully researched orders. He is widely recognized as being extremely intelligent. The Commission evaluated Judge Bentley’s performance by observing him in court, reading orders he issued, reviewing surveys submitted by attorneys and non-attorneys who had appeared in his courtroom, reviewing his self-evaluation, and conducting an in-person interview. During that interview, the Commission confirmed that he had filed all his financial disclosures and that he had no disciplinary issues. The Commission also discussed with Judge Bentley his appellate record, which revealed only three reversals in 29 cases. Appellate judges rated Judge Bentley 3.8 on a scale of 4.0 and one appellate judge comment stated he is an excellent judge in all respects. In addition, the Commission heard comments on Judge Bentley’s performance from the District Attorney, Public Defender, and Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District. On the 2024 Judicial Performance Survey, survey invites were sent to 869 attorneys and non-attorneys, but only 24 of them responded. That response rate of 2.8% makes the surveys statistically invalid. Of the responders, the overwhelming majority believed Judge Bentley met performance standards. He received a combined score of 3.5 out of 4.0.
2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 69.0% yes
165,467 yes · 74,482 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (5-0) agrees that El Paso County District Judge Eric Bentley MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Bentley was appointed to the El Paso County District Court in October, 2016. Judge Bentley received his undergraduate degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1987. After graduating, Judge Bentley worked as a journalist. Judge Bentley graduated from Yale Law School in 1993. After law school Judge Bentley served as a law clerk for a Federal District Court judge and for a Federal Circuit Court Judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After clerking, Judge Bentley worked as a criminal prosecutor for the United States Department of Justice in both Philadelphia and Washington D.C. He practiced civil/corporate law in Colorado Springs for fifteen years before his appointment to the District Court. The Commission reviewed Judge Bentley’s self-evaluation, a number of his written decisions, and evaluations provided by both attorneys and non-attorneys. The Commission found the evaluations of Judge Bentley by both attorneys and non-attorneys to be strong. Specifically, attorneys noted Judge Bentley is above average in the areas of case management, application and knowledge of the law, communication, demeanor and diligence. Non-attorney scores were slightly lower. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria do you think Judge Bentley meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey 86% answered yes, meets performance standards 11% answered no, does not meet performance standards and 4% had no opinion. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 65% answered yes, meets performance standards and 35% answered no, does not meet performance standards. However, the Commission notes that because Judge Bentley had been on the bench for only a little over one year when the evaluations were done, the sample size of respondents was small. Specifically, only 25 non-attorneys and 41 attorneys completed evaluations of Judge Bentley. The Commission was impressed by the comments and self-reflection of Judge Bentley at his interview, and in his self-evaluation. The Commission believes that Judge Bentley presently meets performance standards, and as he gains more experience he will become an exceptional jurist on the El Paso County District Court.

Surveys & reports

2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Eric Bentley 2021 Ju dicial Performance Survey Report District C ourt 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 . . 8 Case Management . . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 9 Communications. .10 Demeanor . .11 Diligence . .12 Fairness . .14 Survey of Appellate Judges . .15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .16 Methodology and How to Read Results . .16 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .19 Methodology and How to Read Results . .19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Bentley, 30 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 30 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 3.4 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Bentley All District Judges Judge Bentley All District Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 86% 82% 80% 76% 60% 50% 50% 40% 18% 20% 14% 13% 6% 5% 0% Judge Bentley All District Judges Judge Bentley 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 Bentley Bentley Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 82% 50% 76% standards No, does not meet 14% 13% 0% 18% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 50% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.3 3.7 Demeanor 3.4 3.6 Fairness 3.4 Judge Bentley All District Judges Judge All District Bentley Judges Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and 3.1 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.3 Demeanor 3.7 3.4 Fairness 3.6 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 38 16% 63% 24 Non-Attorneys 7 - - 6 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Bentley received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 6 ## Page 7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 7 ## Page 8 Detailed R eport Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Bentley Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Bentley Attorneys 3.3 Judge Bentley Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Bentley D istrict Judges J udge Bentley J udge Bentley Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.8 18 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.3 3.5 3.2 3.8 29 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.8 22 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4 28 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Bentley Overall 3.1 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Bentley Attorneys 3.2 Judge Bentley Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge Bentley D istrict Judges J udge Bentley J udge Bentley Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.7 28 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 21 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 17 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 22 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 22 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 6 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2.5 3.4 N/A 2.5 6 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Bentley Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Bentley Attorneys 3.4 Judge Bentley Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Bentley D istrict Judges J udge Bentley J udge Bentley Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.8 28 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 21 reasoned Using language that everyone can 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 6 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 6 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Bentley Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Bentley Attorneys 3.6 Judge Bentley Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Bentley D istrict Judges J udge Bentley J udge Bentley N umber of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys R esponses Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 28 Treating participants with respect 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 28 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.4 3.3 4.0 28 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 5 appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Bentley Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Bentley Attorneys 3.3 Judge Bentley Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Bentley D istrict Judges J udge Bentley J udge Bentley Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 22 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 20 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 22 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 6 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 6 Maintaining appropriate control 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 6 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.5 3.3 N/A 2.5 4 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 12 ## Page 13 Judge Bentley D istrict Judges J udge Bentley J udge Bentley Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 6 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 13 ## Page 14 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Bentley Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Bentley Attorneys Judge Bentley Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Bentley District Judges Judge Bentley Judge Bentley Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 6 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 6 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 5 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 14 ## Page 15 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Bentley 5 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Bentley enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Bentley Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.6 District Judges Number of Judge Bentley Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 4.0 3.6 5 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 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 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2 020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2 021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 16 ## Page 17 Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A 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 2020 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 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 interim. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 17 ## Page 18 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges 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, 5 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Bentley to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for interim. 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, 2021. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses N ot Applicable Rate Attorney 235 38 0 24 63% Staff 2 0 2 - Others 41 5 0 4 - Total Non-Attorneys 41 7 - 6 - Total Respondents - 45 - 30 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 20
- 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Er ic Bentley 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Survey of Appellate Judges. . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - District Judge Survey by Appellate Judges. . 20 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Bentley, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 821 22 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 22 Non-attorney email Invite 48 2 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 1 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 3 Total N/A 25 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Bentley Overall Judge Bentley Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.5 25 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 89% 100% 16 3 standards No, does not meet performance 11% 0% 2 0 standards No opinion 0% 0% 0 0 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Bentley Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Communications 3.5 Diligence 3.3 Demeanor 3.6 Fairness 3.4 Judge Bentley Score Judge Number of Bentley Responses Score Case Management 3.4 25 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 24 Communications 3.5 24 Diligence 3.3 23 Demeanor 3.6 24 Fairness 3.4 22 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 2.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.7 3.7 3.7 19 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.6 3.6 4.0 24 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 3.4 3.7 1.7 20 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.4 3.5 2.3 25 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.1 3.2 2.3 23 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.4 3.4 3.7 24 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.5 3.5 N/A 20 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.4 3.4 N/A 14 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.4 3.4 N/A 20 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.5 3.5 N/A 19 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 3.5 3.5 N/A 21 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.5 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.7 3.7 3.7 21 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 3.5 3.5 N/A 21 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.2 N/A 19 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.6 3.6 N/A 19 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.6 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 4.0 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.7 3.6 4.0 22 Treats participants with respect. 3.6 3.6 4.0 24 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 3.9 3.9 N/A 15 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 3.0 3.0 N/A 20 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.7 3.7 N/A 20 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 4.0 N/A 4.0 3 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.3 Attorneys 3.3 Non-Attorneys 3.0 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.4 3.4 N/A 19 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 3.6 3.6 N/A 17 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.2 3.2 N/A 20 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 2.3 N/A 2.3 3 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 2.3 N/A 2.3 3 Is prepared for cases 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Manages court proceedings so there is little 3.0 N/A 3.0 3 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 3.3 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 2.3 N/A 2.3 3 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 3.6 3.6 N/A 18 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 3.6 3.6 N/A 18 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 3.1 3.1 N/A 19 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 3.7 3.7 N/A 17 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Bentley 6 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Bentley enough to evaluate their performance. 4.0 3.8 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Bentley Overall Judge Bentley Overall Number of Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 6 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Bentley, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 14 ## Page 15 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 793 Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 15 ## Page 16 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 16 ## Page 17 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 17 ## Page 18 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 18 ## Page 19 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. 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’s or justice’s written opinions). 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 are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Di strict Judge Survey by Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates Invitations were sent via email to all 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 6 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Bentley 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 16, 2024. Reminders were sent on January 22 and January 29, 2024. C. Questions Due to the considerable 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 through F, with A being Excellent and F being Fail. To reduce bias in the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order. D. Analysis and Reporting For analysis, letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and F = 0. 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 is reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question; that is, the percentage of respondents who 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 20
2018 cycle
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.3
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  77%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  65%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Eric Bentley 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 Eric Bentley, 66 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 49 agreed they had worked with Judge Eric enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 49 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 3.51 3.30 3.02 2.90 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Eric Bentley Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.3 3.51 3.02 N/A 2.90 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 86% 80% 77% 65% 61% 60% 39% 40% 35% 21% 20% 11% 4% 2% 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 Eric Bentley Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 77% 86% 65% 0% 61% standards No, does not meet performance 21% 11% 35% 0% 39% standards No opinion 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Eric Bentley Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.55 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.34 2.70 N/A 2.55 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.50 3.46 N/A 3.40 Diligence 3.48 2.98 N/A 2.86 Demeanor 3.70 3.07 N/A 2.96 Fairness N/A 2.88 N/A 2.75 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 130 0 41 32% 27% Total Non- 168 18 25 17% 24% Attorneys Staff 4 0 3 75% 33% Jurors 0 0 0 N/A N/A Other Non- 164 18 22 15% 23% 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 Eric Bentley 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Eric, 41 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 30 agreed they had worked with Judge Eric enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 30 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric 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 3.55 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.64 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 3.45 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.52 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 3.57 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Eric A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Bentley Promptly issuing a decision on the 19 4 1 1 -- 4 29 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 18 6 5 -- -- -- 29 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 16 7 1 1 -- 4 29 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 18 9 -- 1 -- 1 29 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric 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 3.34 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 3.37 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 3.42 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 4 are similar 3.20 3.46 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 15 8 3 1 -- 2 29 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 15 8 2 1 -- 3 29 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 similar Being fair and impartial to both 17 8 2 1 -- 1 29 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 13 8 3 1 1 3 29 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric 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 3.5 Communications Overall Average 3.44 3.67 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 3.38 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 17 6 1 -- -- 4 28 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 15 6 5 -- -- 3 29 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric 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 3.7 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 3.69 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 3.76 Treating participants with respect 3.44 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 20 9 -- -- -- -- 29 dignity Treating participants with respect 22 7 -- -- -- -- 29 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 21 6 2 -- -- -- 29 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric 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 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.21 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.56 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.56 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 15 7 4 1 1 1 29 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 17 8 2 -- -- 2 29 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 18 4 2 1 -- 4 29 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 Eric Bentley 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Eric meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Eric Bentley Yes, meets performance 86% standards No, does not meet 11% performance standards No opinion 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Eric, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 1 agreed they had worked with Judge Eric enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 1 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Eric A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Bentley Overall performance as a 1 -- -- -- -- 14 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 Eric Bentley 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Eric Bentley, 25 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 19 agreed they had worked with Judge Eric enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 19 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric Bentley 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 Eric Bentley 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 3.07 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.11 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.33 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.11 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 12 2 1 -- 3 2 20 Treating participants with respect 12 3 1 1 1 2 20 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 12 1 3 2 1 1 20 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 8 7 1 2 1 1 20 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 Eric Bentley 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 2.88 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.05 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 2.63 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 2.89 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.11 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 11 3 2 1 2 1 20 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 11 -- 2 2 4 1 20 case without bias Treating fairly people who 6 -- 1 -- 2 11 20 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 10 5 -- 1 2 2 20 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 Eric Bentley 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 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.28 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 3.44 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.67 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 12 3 1 -- 2 2 20 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 13 3 -- 1 1 2 20 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 15 2 -- -- 1 2 20 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 Eric Bentley 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 2.98 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.22 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.72 for cases 3.61 3.17 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 3.06 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 2.94 wasted time 3.51 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 11 4 -- 2 1 2 20 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 8 3 4 -- 3 2 20 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 11 3 1 2 1 2 20 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 10 3 1 1 2 3 20 Managing court proceedings so that there is 10 1 3 1 2 2 19 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 Eric Bentley 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 2.7 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 2.84 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3 outside pressure 3.56 2.58 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Eric All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Eric Bentley A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 11 3 -- 1 4 1 20 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 10 2 1 3 1 3 20 pressure Being able to identify and 9 3 1 2 4 1 20 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 Eric Bentley 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Eric meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge Eric Bentley Yes, meets performance 65% standards No, does not meet 35% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Eric Bentley 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

2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026