Maria E. Berkenkotter

Evaluation history

• 2024 retention cycle

  Supreme Court

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against · 1 recused

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 66.8% yes

  1,685,363 yes · 837,630 no50% needed to retain
  The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by a vote of 10–0 with one recusal. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.Justice Berkenkotter has been on the Colorado Supreme Court since January of 2021. The Commission finds that Justice Berkenkotter received high scores in all areas in her 2024 Evaluation including fairness and impartiality, issuing timely written opinions solidly based upon the facts and law, and being a leader in effective judicial administration and community service. These scores are consistent with the high scores she received in her 2023 Interim Evaluation. Comments from attorneys and judges include that she is thoughtful, practical, kind, and respectful in her approach to the parties, counsel, and other justices. Her written opinions are clear and well-organized. The Commission was especially impressed with Justice Berkenkotter’s leadership in addressing the issues raised by the lawyers’ and judges’ use of artificial intelligence and her positive efforts to help achieve team collaboration among other members of the judiciary, law clerks, and staff. To conduct the evaluation, the Commission interviewed Justice Berkenkotter, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of her legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. One survey question asked whether Justice Berkenkotter met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 91% answered yes and 9% answered no. Of the judges who responded to that question, 100% answered yes. A total of 54 attorneys and judges responded to the survey.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Boulder · Boulder

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 78.9% yes

  76,580 yes · 20,484 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The ten members of the Judicial Performance Commission for the Twentieth Judicial District unanimously recommend that Chief Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter BE RETAINED. Judge Berkenkotter received her undergraduate degree from Western Michigan University.  She obtained her law degree from the University of Denver in 1987.  Thereafter, Judge Berkenkotter served as a clerk for Colorado Supreme Court Justice Howard M. Kirshbaum for one year.  After spending two years in private practice, she then served in the Colorado Attorney General’s Office for 16 years, rising to a supervisory role in the Antitrust, Consumer Protection and Tobacco Litigation Unit.  She was appointed as a District Court Judge in Boulder County in 2006.  She was retained by Boulder County voters in 2008.  In September 2013, Judge Berkenkotter was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court to the position of Chief Judge for the Twentieth Judicial District. Our retention recommendation is based on responses to anonymous surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys that appeared in Judge Berkenkotter’s courtroom, a self-evaluation, unannounced visits to her courtroom, several written opinions, and an interview with Judge Berkenkotter.  The commission also invited input from the citizens in a public hearing soliciting information about all the judges up for retention. Survey results for Judge Berkenkotter were very good, with an overall rating of 3.33 (out of 4) from the 96 attorneys who responded and 3.77 from 270 non-attorneys.  Among attorneys, 87% recommended retention and 9% recommended non-retention, and 5% made no recommendation. Among non-attorneys, 97% recommended retention, and 2% recommended non-retention. (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Fifty-nine percent of attorneys reported that Judge Berkenkotter showed a slight biased in favor of the prosecution, while 39% reported that she was completely neutral. Judge Berkenkotter estimates that approximately 25% of her time is spent in civil proceedings, 35% on domestic relations issues, and 40% in criminal proceedings.  As Chief Judge, she is also responsible for administrative management of the work of eight District Court judges and five County Court judges, other courthouse personnel, managing the physical space of the courthouse, and managing fiscal issues.  Judge Berkenkotter reported, as an example of her work as Chief Judge, that her attendance was required at 150 meetings during the past year, over and above the time demands of  her regular docket. Comments from both attorneys and non-attorneys indicate that Judge Berkenkotter is perceived to be hard-working, organized, and fair.  Several survey respondents complimented Judge Berkenkotter on her judicial demeanor and her consistent respect for everyone in the courtroom.  The Commission feels that we are fortunate to have such a skilled, hard-working, and compassionate Chief Judge in the Twentieth Judicial District.
• 2008 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Boulder · Boulder

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 78.5% yes

  83,900 yes · 22,922 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twentieth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter BE RETAINED. Background: Judge Berkenkotter was appointed to the District Court in 2006. Before her appointment, Judge Berkenkotter was a law clerk at the Colorado Supreme Court for a year and also engaged in the private practice of law. Thereafter, Judge Berkenkotter was a First Assistant Attorney General at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, supervising the Antitrust, Consumer Protection and Tobacco Litigation Units. Judge Berkenkotter received her law degree from the University of Denver in 1987. The recommendation that Judge Berkenkotter be retained is based upon courtroom observations, a personal interview, a review of three of her written opinions performed by the Commission, and the survey results of litigants, court staff, jurors, attorneys, appellate judges, and others who have knowledge of Judge Berkenkotter’s performance as a judge. The Commission also held a public hearing to solicit additional feedback. Evaluation: The Commission notes that while Judge Berkenkotter has been on the bench for only two years, she already functions like a more experienced judge. Judge Berkenkotter displays a good judicial temperament and balances control and efficiency with respect and fairness in her courtroom. She acknowledges being unfamiliar with certain substantive areas of the law and has dedicated significant efforts to becoming knowledgeable and proficient in those areas. She appears to be making excellent progress in this effort. Judge Berkenkotter is a hard-working judge who makes it her priority to give all parties a full and fair opportunity to be heard in her courtroom. She also strives to issue clear, thorough, and fully understandable oral and written rulings. Recommendation: Survey results showed strong support for retaining Judge Berkenkotter. Of those who stated an opinion, 90% of the attorneys and 80% of the non-attorneys recommended that she be retained. Many of the survey respondents added positive comments about her performance as a judge. Of the four appellate court judges who rated Judge Berkenkotter, all gave her an “A”, the highest available grade. The average grade for all district judges was a “B+.”

Surveys & reports

• 2024 cycle
  • 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . .10 Methodology and How to Read Results . .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Berkenkotter, 34 attorneys and judges completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 34 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 (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.7 3.6 3 2 1 0 Justice Berkenkotter All Supreme Court Justices Justice All Supreme Court Berkenkotter Justices Overall Grade 3.7 3.6 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 94% 95% 83% 81% 80% 60% 40% 17% 18% 20% 6% 4% 2% 1% 0% Justice Berkenkotter All Supreme Court Justice Berkenkotter All Supreme Court Justices Justices Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Justice Supreme Justice Supreme Berkenkotter Court Berkenkotter Court Justices Justices Yes, meets performance 83% 81% 94% 95% standards No, does not meet 17% 18% 6% 4% performance standards No opinion 0% 2% 0% 1% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 General (Attorneys) 3.6 3.4 Writing (Attorneys) 3.3 3.8 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 Justice Berkenkotter All Supreme Court Justices All Justice Supreme Berkenkotter Court Justices General (Attorneys) 3.5 3.6 Writing (Attorneys) 3.4 3.3 Inter-Judge 3.8 3.6 Evaluation 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 13 20% 46% 6 Judges 28 11% - 28 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Justice Berkenkotter Overall 3.5 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.6 Supreme Court Justice Berkenkotter Justices Number of Responses Overall Overall Being fair and impartial toward 3.5 3.5 6 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their 3.8 3.7 6 arguments and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.5 3.5 6 economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.3 3.6 6 Not engaging in ex parte 4.0 3.8 5 communications Being prepared for oral argument 4.0 3.7 5 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Berkenkotter Overall 3.4 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.3 Justice Berkenkotter Supreme Court Number of Overall Justices Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.3 3.4 3 Writing opinions that adequately explain 3.7 3.4 3 the basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.3 3.5 3 Making decisions without regard to 4.0 3.4 4 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon 3.4 3.3 5 the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.2 3.3 4 not be decided 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Berkenkotter Overall 3.8 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.6 Supreme Justice Court Number of Berkenkotter Justices Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.7 3.6 27 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.8 3.7 27 Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.7 3.6 22 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.8 3.7 27 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.7 3.6 27 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.7 3.6 27 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.8 3.7 28 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic 3.8 3.8 28 status 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Berkenkotter, 34 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 34 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 During the administration, a total of 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total 7,151 surveys were completed with an additional 10,495 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 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%.In addition to email, attorney could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 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 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. 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 and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23th a nd January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emails, attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 10 ## Page 11 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. 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. 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 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 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 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite 3,427 1,864 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 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, 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 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 2021 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 23 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, 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 11 ## Page 12 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2022. A ll 227 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2022. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 37 survey invitations sent. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 12rd, 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 20th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2 023. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 16th , 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 23rd. T he survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2023. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 64 13 0 6 46% Judges 264 28 0 28 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 14
  • 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Justice M aria E. Berkenkotter 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme C ourt 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 – Attorney Survey . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys). . 7 Detailed Report – Judge Survey . . 8 General Evaluation Questions (Judges). . 8 Appellate Writing (Judges) . . 8 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 9 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 9 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Appellate Judges. . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Berkenkotter, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 531 20 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 1 Total Attorneys - 21 Judges 260 33 Total N/A 54 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.7 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Justice Berkenkotter Overall Justice Berkenkotter Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.7 54 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 91% 100% 19 33 standards No, does not meet performance 10% 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 Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 General 4.0 3.5 Writing 3.8 Score Attorneys Score Judges Score Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges General 3.6 4.0 20 30 Writing 3.5 3.8 21 32 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report – At torney Survey General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) Justice Berkenkotter Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.6 20 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 3.6 19 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) Justice Berkenkotter Number of Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.5 20 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.5 20 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.6 20 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.6 21 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.4 21 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.3 19 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report – Ju dge Survey General Evaluation Questions (Judges) Justice Berkenkotter Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 4.0 30 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 4.0 22 Appellate Writing (Judges) Justice Berkenkotter Number of Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.8 32 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.8 32 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.8 28 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.8 31 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.9 32 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.9 29 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 8 ## Page 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Berkenkotter, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 9 ## Page 10 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%. 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 Invitation Method Invitations Sent Aspects of 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- 2497 793 select) 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 10 ## Page 11 C. Questions 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 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 11 ## Page 12 Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 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 Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 12 ## Page 13 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 Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 13 ## Page 14 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 Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Ap pellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates All 223 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves. A total of 71 judges responded and completed 992 evaluations. B. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 16th, 2024 and reminders were sent on January 26th a nd January 31st, 2 024. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 4th, 2 024. C. Questions 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). Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 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. D. Analysis and Reporting Judges 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. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 15 ## Page 16 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 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 Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter 16
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMaarriiaa EE.. BBeerrkkeennkkootttteerr 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Maria E. Berkenkotter Boulder Justice Center P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Judge Berkenkotter: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by 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 two 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. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 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 respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Maria E. Berkenkotter May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.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, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, district judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.30, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.33, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.71, Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.52. Judge Berkenkotter Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.52 3.33 3.71 Sample Size - 82 239 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Berkenkotter from 20051 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Berkenkotter’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Berkenkotter Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2005 2007 3.44 3.69 8 3.18 14 2008 3.79 51 2009 3.43 3.32 41 3.54 93 2010 3.60 3.26 33 3.94 81 Overall 3.52 3.33 82 3.71 239 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 66%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for district judges was 1 There were no surveys conducted based on cases that closed in 2006. See methodology section for more details. 1 ## Page 5 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Berkenkotter’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2005 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges. Judge Berkenkotter Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All District Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2005 % % 3.84 3.25 2007 3.58 5 36% 2.98 9 64% 3.86 3.31 2008 3.86 47 92% 3.04 4 8% 3.87 3.30 2009 3.90 55 59% 3.01 38 41% 3.87 3.26 2010 3.94 80 99% 3.89 1 1% 3.88 3.28 All Yrs. 3.90 187 78% 3.02 52 22% 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Berkenkotter’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa EE.. BBeerrkkeennkkooteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 8822)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Sample Size = 82 A B C D Fail DK/NA Berkenkotter Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 40% 30% 6% 2% 0% 22% 3.37 3.40 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 56% 35% 6% 1% 0% 1% 3.48 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 44% 29% 12% 2% 0% 12% 3.31 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 30% 10% 2% 0% 4% 3.41 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.39 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 49% 28% 12% 7% 1% 2% 3.19 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 41% 28% 10% 11% 2% 7% 3.03 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 34% 24% 11% 7% 5% 18% 2.93 3.02 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 24% 28% 22% 3% 0% 22% 2.93 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.02 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 30% 5% 0% 0% 1% 3.60 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 36% 3% 7% 0% 11% 3.31 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.46 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 26% 4% 0% 0% 1% 3.66 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 69% 27% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.68 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 21% 9% 6% 5% 1% 3.23 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 46% 33% 9% 5% 2% 5% 3.21 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.45 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 43% 37% 10% 6% 1% 2% 3.18 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 40% 5% 1% 0% 4% 3.45 3.33 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 58% 19% 4% 1% 1% 17% 3.58 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.40 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Berkenkotter Judges Sample Size = 82 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 19% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 44% 26% Completely neutral 37% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 22% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 6% Total Retain 90% 88% Total Not Retain 10% 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 64% 69% Somewhat recommend retain 21% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 85% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 4% Total Not Retain 8% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.33 Overall Average Grade 3.30 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.39 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.37 case after trial. 3.40 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.48 proceedings. 3.41 3.31 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.41 3.26 3.02 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.19 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.03 3.14 2.93 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.93 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.14 3.46 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.60 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.45 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.66 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.49 3.68 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.23 in a neutral manner. 3.29 3.21 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.40 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.18 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.45 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.58 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 19% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 44% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 37% Completely Neutral 47% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Berkenkotter be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 68% Strongly recommend retain 72% 22% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Judge All Dist Berkenkotter Judges 3% Total Retain 90% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 10% 12% 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 64% Strongly recommend retain 69% 21% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Judge All Dist 6% Berkenkotter Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 85% 84% Undecided or DK 6% 4% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 8% 12% 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa EE.. BBeerrkkeennkkooteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 223399)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Sample Size = 239 A B C D Fail DK/NA Berkenkotter Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 84% 9% 3% 1% 3% 0% 3.71 3.70 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 88% 6% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3.77 3.72 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 85% 8% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3.73 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 85% 6% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.71 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.73 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 85% 8% 4% 1% 2% 0% 3.74 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 86% 6% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3.72 3.65 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 48% 3% 1% 1% 2% 44% 3.67 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 11% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3.71 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.71 3.67 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 10% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 86% 8% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.79 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 10% 5% 0% 0% 1% 3.79 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.77 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 72% 21% 4% 1% 2% 0% 3.61 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 87% 8% 2% 2% 0% 0% 3.81 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 76% 10% 5% 2% 1% 6% 3.69 3.64 4d. Being prepared for cases. 80% 7% 3% 2% 2% 7% 3.73 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 21% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.69 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 11% 5% 2% 3% 9% 3.56 3.60 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 67% 6% 2% 0% 3% 22% 3.72 3.64 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 7% 5% 0% 3% 10% 3.66 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.71 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Berkenkotter Judges Sample Size = 239 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% 8% Competely neutral 89% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.08 0.07 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 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% 8% Competely neutral 80% 82% Lenient sentencing total 9% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.14 0.04 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 90% 89% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 4% Total Retain 95% 95% Total Not Retain 5% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 86% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 4% Total Retain 91% 90% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 5% Total Not Retain 5% 6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.71 Overall Average Grade 3.67 3.73 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.71 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.70 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.77 3.72 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.73 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.71 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.61 3.71 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.67 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.74 heard. 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.72 case without bias. 3.65 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.67 themselves. 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.71 or her case. 3.69 3.77 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.74 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.72 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.72 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.79 understand. 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.79 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.69 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.61 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.81 proceedings. 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.69 3.64 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.73 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.59 little wasted time. 3.58 3.65 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 3.60 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.72 possible outside pressure. 3.64 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.66 relevant facts. 3.63 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.08 Maria E. Berkenkotter 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.14 Maria E. Berkenkotter 0.04 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Berkenkotter be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 90% Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Judge All Dist Berkenkotter Judges Total Retain 95% 95% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 5% 6% 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 5% Judge All Dist Undecided 5% Berkenkotter Judges Total Retain 91% 90% 2% Undecided 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 5% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance 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 Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, 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 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 in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores 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 justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s 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. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. 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 fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” 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 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. 18 ## Page 22 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 percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent 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 in 2010, 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 in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores 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 justice or 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 Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” 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 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 percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. 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 third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney 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 what they considered to be the judge’s 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 21 ## Page 25 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. 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 Berkenkotter is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal Defense Attorneys 159 107 0 0 52 32.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 19 17 0 0 2 10.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 54 26 1 0 27 50.9% Other Attorneys Civil 6 5 1 0 0 0.0% GAL 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 239 155 2 0 82 34.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 238 142 67 3 26 15.2% Civil Litigant 98 59 14 1 24 28.6% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 316 107 16 5 187 62.3% Employees 6 2 0 2 2 33.3% Total Non-attorneys 660 312 97 11 239 42.5% Grand Total: 899 467 99 11 321 40.1% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 5963 3735 108 3 2117 36.2% Defense Attorneys 9005 5407 125 0 3473 39.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 310 260 2 1 47 15.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 9795 4329 410 17 5039 53.7% Other Attorneys Civil 6107 3564 63 4 2476 41.0% GAL 101 43 5 0 53 55.2% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 193 60 22 0 111 64.9% Total Attorneys 31474 17398 735 25 13316 43.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 149 85 40 3 21 19.3% Witness 13212 6730 4190 587 1705 18.9% Other 5595 3441 1430 55 667 16.0% Law Enforcement 13854 7651 3233 295 2674 25.2% Defendant 40047 19046 17527 241 3226 14.3% Civil Litigant 23266 13519 5107 291 4337 23.9% Witness 618 306 139 15 158 33.0% Other 679 317 150 18 194 36.7% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 2763 1447 1003 4 309 17.6% Jurors 48708 18523 2771 544 26770 58.3% Employees 905 283 121 66 435 55.5% Total Non-attorneys 149796 71348 35711 2119 40496 35.5% Grand Total: 181270 88746 36446 2144 53812 37.2% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 13316 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.40 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 5% 2% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 47% 24% 11% 6% 4% 8% 3.14 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 20% 10% 6% 4% 21% 3.02 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 23% 9% 4% 3% 26% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 24% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 12% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 7% 2% 2% 1% 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 20% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 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 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.33 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 19% 7% 3% 2% 14% 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 13316 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 72% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 40496 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.72 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.65 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.66 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.67 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.64 4d.Being prepared for cases. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.71 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 1% 3% 18% 3.64 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 12% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 40496 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.04 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 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 retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMaarriiaa EE.. BBeerrkkeennkkootttteerr 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Maria E. Berkenkotter Boulder Justice Center P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Judge Berkenkotter: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter received an overall combined average grade of 3.55 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.77, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge Berkenkotter Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.55 3.33 3.77 Sample Size - 96 270 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Berkenkotter’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 Berkenkotter Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 NA NA NA 3.79 51 2009 3.43 3.32 41 3.54 93 2010 3.60 3.26 33 3.94 81 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.69 3.50 22 3.88 45 Overall 3.55 3.33 96 3.77 270 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.80, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Berkenkotter’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Berkenkotter Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.91 209 77% 3.26 61 23% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa EE.. BBeerrkkeennkkooteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 9966)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Sample Size = 96 A B C D Fail DK/NA Berkenkotter Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 36% 33% 7% 2% 0% 21% 3.32 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 31% 6% 2% 0% 1% 3.49 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 40% 33% 11% 3% 0% 13% 3.25 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 30% 9% 3% 0% 6% 3.38 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.36 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 26% 11% 6% 1% 2% 3.27 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 50% 27% 7% 11% 2% 2% 3.14 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 25% 8% 9% 4% 18% 2.95 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 29% 30% 23% 4% 0% 14% 2.98 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.09 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 68% 26% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3.62 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 48% 31% 3% 6% 2% 9% 3.29 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.46 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 23% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3.67 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 71% 25% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.67 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 21% 7% 6% 4% 1% 3.28 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 50% 29% 7% 5% 4% 4% 3.21 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.46 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 46% 34% 8% 6% 3% 2% 3.16 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 51% 38% 4% 2% 1% 4% 3.41 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 60% 18% 3% 2% 1% 16% 3.59 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.39 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Berkenkotter Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 18% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 41% 27% Completely neutral 39% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 2% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 64% 56% Recommend retain 23% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 8% Recommend not retain 9% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 87% 80% Neither 5% 8% Total Not Retain 9% 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.33 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.36 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.32 case after trial. 3.44 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.25 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.38 3.28 3.09 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.27 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.14 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 2.95 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 2.98 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.46 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.62 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.29 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.46 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.67 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.67 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.28 neutral manner. 3.28 3.21 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.39 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.16 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.41 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.59 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.43 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 18% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 41% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 39% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Berkenkotter be retained or not retained in office? 64% Strongly recommend retain 56% 23% Recommend retain 24% 5% Judge All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Berkenkotter Judges* Total Retain 87% 80% 9% Neither 5% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 9% 11% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa EE.. BBeerrkkeennkkooteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter All District No Maria E. Judges* Evaluations of Judge Berkenkotter = 16 A B C D Fail Grade Berkenkotter Judge Berkenkotter in terms of overall performance as a judge. 56% 19% 0% 0% 0% 25% 3.75 3.46 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa EE.. BBeerrkkeennkkooteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 227700)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Sample Size = 270 A B C D Fail DK/NA Berkenkotter Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 87% 8% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3.79 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 90% 6% 2% 1% 1% 0% 3.82 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 88% 7% 1% 2% 1% 0% 3.79 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 87% 6% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3.76 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.79 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 88% 6% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3.79 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 88% 6% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3.78 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 3% 0% 1% 2% 41% 3.75 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 85% 8% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3.76 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.77 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 85% 9% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 88% 7% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3.82 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 87% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.83 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.81 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 74% 20% 4% 0% 1% 0% 3.67 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 90% 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3.85 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 78% 10% 4% 1% 0% 5% 3.74 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 84% 6% 2% 2% 1% 6% 3.81 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 76% 18% 4% 1% 1% 0% 3.66 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.75 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 12% 4% 1% 3% 8% 3.63 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 4% 2% 0% 2% 21% 3.77 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 79% 7% 3% 0% 2% 8% 3.74 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.71 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.77 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Maria E. All District Berkenkotter Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 6% 8% Competely neutral 90% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.09 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 8% 8% Competely neutral 80% 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.06 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 90% 75% Recommend retain 7% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 0% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 97% 88% Neither 0% 6% Total Not Retain 2% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.77 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.79 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.79 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.82 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.79 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.76 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.77 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.79 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.78 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.75 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.76 or her case. 3.70 3.81 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.78 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.82 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.83 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.75 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.67 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.85 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.74 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.81 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.66 little wasted time. 3.61 3.71 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.63 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.77 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.74 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.09 Maria E. Berkenkotter 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 0.06 Maria E. Berkenkotter 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. Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 14 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Berkenkotter be retained or not retained in office? 90% Strongly recommend retain 75% 7% Recommend retain 13% 0% Neither retain nor not retain Judge All Dist 6% Berkenkotter Judges* 0% Total Retain 97% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 0% 6% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Maria E. Berkenkotter All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 15 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-seven appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. 19 ## Page 23 e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, a questionnaire was sent to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Sixteen questionnaires were returned, though not all 16 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 21 ## Page 25 The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Berkenkotter is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding District Judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Maria E. Berkenkotter Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal Defense Attorneys 163 106 1 0 56 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 7 5 0 0 2 28.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 41 22 0 0 19 46.3% Other Attorneys Civil 52 25 9 0 18 41.9% GAL 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 264 158 10 0 96 37.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 47 35 5 0 7 16.7% Defendant 228 136 63 3 26 15.8% Civil Litigant 64 33 9 1 21 38.2% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 351 121 16 5 209 62.4% Employees, including Interpreters 16 7 0 2 7 43.8% Total Non-attorneys 707 333 93 11 270 44.0% Grand Total: 971 491 103 11 366 42.2% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3105 1702 353 0 1050 38.2% Defense Attorneys 4381 2309 386 0 1686 42.2% Other Attorneys Criminal 164 88 10 0 66 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3667 1426 237 0 2004 58.4% Other Attorneys Civil 4136 1945 378 0 1813 48.2% GAL 34 11 2 0 21 65.6% Total Attorneys 15487 7481 1366 0 6640 47.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 55 28 18 0 9 24.3% Witness 5936 3024 1701 304 907 21.4% Other 58 32 13 3 10 22.2% Law Enforcement 5118 2861 1236 140 881 22.7% Defendant 17993 7871 8866 117 1139 12.5% Civil Litigant 8137 4580 1905 149 1503 24.1% Witness 122 51 34 3 34 38.6% Other 221 78 56 8 79 47.9% Jurors 17789 7033 1065 254 9437 56.4% Employees, including Interpreters 1120 450 172 21 477 50.3% Probation Officers 65 19 0 5 41 63.1% Total Non-attorneys 56614 26027 15066 1004 14517 34.9% Grand Total: 72101 33508 16432 1004 21157 38.0% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6640 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 6% 2% 1% 20% 3.44 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 26% 9% 3% 2% 12% 3.30 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 4% 3% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 10% 6% 6% 24% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 26% 11% 5% 4% 14% 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.50 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 10% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 5% 5% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3.34 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 18% 6% 3% 2% 15% 3.43 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 80% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14517 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 10% 3% 1% 2% 0% 3.73 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 11% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.66 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.68 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 11% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.69 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 71% 19% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.61 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.67 4d.Being prepared for cases. 80% 10% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.73 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 13% 4% 1% 3% 7% 3.63 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 68% 9% 2% 1% 2% 17% 3.67 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 11% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges* DK/ Sample Size = 16 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014. 23% 16% 2% 1% 0% 58% Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 35 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 38 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Randall C. Arp ............... A B C D F Barbara L. Hughes ........ A B C D F Jack W. Berryhill............ A B C D F Thomas K. Kane ........... A B C D F Margie L. Enquist .......... A B C D F Thomas L. Kennedy ...... A B C D F Ann Gail Meinster .......... A B C D F Michael P. McHenry ...... A B C D F Lily W. Oeffler ................ A B C D F David Prince .................. A B C D F Tamara S. Russell ......... A B C D F Gregory R. Werner........ A B C D F Chistopher C. Zenisek ... A B C D F 5th Judicial District 2nd Judicial District Frederick W. Gannett .... A B C D F Martin F. Egelhoff .......... A B C D F Russell H. Granger ....... A B C D F J. Eric Elliff ..................... A B C D F Mark D. Thompson ....... A B C D F A. Bruce Jones .............. A B C D F 6th Judicial District Elizabeth Leith ............... A B C D F Suzanne F. Carlson ...... A B C D F John W. Madden, IV ...... A B C D F 7th Judicial District Robert L. McGahey, Jr. . A B C D F Mary Deganhart ............ A B C D F Sheila A. Rappaport ...... A B C D F Charles R. Greenacre ... A B C D F Elizabeth A. Starrs ........ A B C D F J. Steven Patrick ........... A B C D F Michael J. Vallejos ........ A B C D F James W. Schum .......... A B C D F 4th Judicial District 8th Judicial District William B. Bain .............. A B C D F Julie Kunce Field........... A B C D F Edward S. Colt, II .......... A B C D F Thomas R. French ........ A B C D F Jann P. DuBois.............. A B C D F Stephen E. Howard ....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 39 9th Judicial District No Grade 20th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Denise Lynch................. A B C D F Ingrid S. Bakke .............. A B C D F 10th Judicial District Maria E. Berkenkotter ... A B C D F William D. Alexander ..... A B C D F Patrick D. Butler ............ A B C D F Victor I. Reyes ............... A B C D F Judith L. LaBuda ........... A B C D F Andrew R. Macdonald .. A B C D F 11th Judicial District David M. Thorson .......... A B C D F 21st Judicial District David A. Bottger ............ A B C D F 12th Judicial District Thomas M. Deister........ A B C D F Michael A. Gonzales ..... A B C D F Brian J. Flynn ................ A B C D F 13th Judicial District 22nd Judicial District Kevin L. Hoyer ............... A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F Douglas R. Vannoy ....... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Shelley A. Hill ................ A B C D F 17th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr. A B C D F sheet for comments you would like to make John E. Popovich, Jr. .... A B C D F about any of these district judges. Ted C. Tow, III ............... A B C D F Mark D. Warner ............. A B C D F Francis C. Wasserman .. A B C D F Craig R. Welling ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Michelle A. Amico .......... A B C D F F. Stephen Collins ......... A B C D F Paul A. King................... A B C D F Charles M. Pratt ............ A B C D F Gerald J. Rafferty .......... A B C D F Theresa M. Slade .......... A B C D F Elizabeth B. Volz ........... A B C D F John L. Wheeler ............ A B C D F Vincent R. White ........... A B C D F 19th Judicial District Timothy G. Kerns .......... A B C D F Marcelo Kopcow ............ A B C D F 2 ## Page 40 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 41 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4
• 2008 cycle
  • 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State off Colorado LLogo COOMMISSIOON ON JUUDICIALL PERFORRMANCEE MMaarriiaa BBBBeerrkkeennnnkkootttteeeerr 22008 Juudicial PPerformmance Suurvey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Maria Berkenkotter Boulder Justice Center P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, CO. 80306 Dear Judge Berkenkotter: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2008 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 57,000 people statewide who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 12,400 people responded—3,084 to the attorney survey and 9,317 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: • Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. • Appellate Judges & Comments: New to the 2008 Judicial Performance Evaluation is a survey of Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices regarding the overall performance of district judges. • Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. • Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 TThe Honorabble Maria Berrkenkotter AApril, 30 20088 PPage 2 If you havve any questtions about tthe methodoology and hoow the surveey was coonducted, pllease feel freee to contactt me at 303-4443-5300 ext 1, and for anny other questions youu might have about the ssurvey pleasse call the Exxecutive Dirrector of the CColorado Juddicial Performmance Progrram, Jane Hoowell, at 3033-837-3665. Beest regards, Paaul A. Talmeey Prresident ennc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1122)) ## Page 5 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 33..66 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.7 Q1. Overall Case 33.44 Management 3.4 3.4 Q2. Overall App & 3.4 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.7 3.9 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.7 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAvveerraaggee GGrraaddee Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 6 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Case Management 3.7 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.8 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 33.99 1b. Beginning court on time 3.6 3.5 3.8 1c. Allotting appropriate amount 3.4 of time for cases 3.4 3.9 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.5 3.0 1e. [Civil only] Assisting parties to 3.0 reach agreement 3.0 3.8 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.6 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 motions 3.3 3.8 1h. Promptly issuing a decision 3.5 on the case after trial 3.5 3.9 1i. Setting reasonable schedules 3.3 for cases 33.44 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 7 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.4 LLaaww 3.3 3.3 2a. Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 and arguments 3.3 3.5 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.4 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.2 findings of fact and law 3.2 2.8 2d. Willing to reconsider error in 3.0 ffaacctt oorr llaaww 2.9 3.3 2e. Having knowledge of relevant 3.4 substantive law 3.3 3.5 2f. Having knowledge of rules of 3.5 pprroocceedduurree aanndd eevviiddeennccee 3.4 3.3 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 4.0 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the 3.3 circumstances are similar 3.3 3.4 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.7 2j. Making decisions without fear 3.5 ooff bbeeiinngg aappppeeaalleedd 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 8 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.7 33.99 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.7 3.7 3b. Making sure all participants 3.6 understand the proceedings 3.6 3.9 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 4.0 3d. Providing written communications that are 3.3 clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 9 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Demeanor 3.9 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.9 4a. Giving proceedings a sense 3.5 of dignity 3.5 4.0 4b. Treating everyone involved 3.4 politely 33.44 3.5 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 4.0 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 3.9 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.4 presence on the bench 3.4 3.9 4f. Being consistent in [his/her] 3.4 behavior 3.5 44.00 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.4 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.4 3.9 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.9 44ii. CCoonnssiisstteennttllyy aappppllyyiinngg llaawwss 3.4 and rules 3.4 4.0 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.7 communications 3.7 4.0 44kk. TTrreeaattiinngg pprroo ssee ppaarrttiieess ffaaiirrllyy 33.77 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 10 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Diligence 3.7 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 3.5 55aa. MMaakkiinngg ttoouugghh ddeecciissiioonnss wwhheenn 3.4 necessary 3.4 3.6 5b. Using good judgment in apppplication of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.8 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared 3.4 for [[his/her]] cases 3.4 4.0 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 complicated and time consuming 33.55 3.9 5e. Providing prompt access to 3.5 the court in emergency matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 11 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Berkenkotter is toward the defense or prosecution? Maria Berkenkotter 0.0 All District Judges 0.4 All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 12 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Berkenkotter's sentences? Maria Berkenkotter 0.0 All District Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.3 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 13 Maria Berkenkotter AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Retention Recommendation 110000%% 90% 90% 82% 80% 77%77% 7744%%7744%% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 13% 13%13% 12% 10% 9% 9% 10% 6%6% 6%6% 4%4% 4%4% 4%4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 14 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 59% 57% B 17% 17% 18% C 0% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 17% 19% 21% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 15 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 92% 66% 62% B 8% 23% 25% C 0% 5% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 3% 2% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 16 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 55% 56% B 25% 27% 28% C 0% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 5% 4% Average 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 17 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 83% 58% 58% B 8% 27% 28% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 8% 4% 4% Average 3.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 18 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 30% 23% 23% B 30% 17% 17% C 10% 10% 8% D 10% 4% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 20% 44% 47% Average 3.0 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 19 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 64% 66% B 25% 22% 22% C 0% 8% 7% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 20 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 45% 44% B 8% 23% 21% C 8% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 1% No Grade 42% 19% 24% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 21 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 64% 48% 48% B 18% 17% 16% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 18% 27% 29% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 22 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 53% 54% B 9% 26% 26% C 0% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 7% 8% Average 3.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 23 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 54% 54% B 25% 25% 25% C 0% 9% 9% D 17% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 5% 5% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 24 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 57% 56% B 8% 25% 25% C 8% 9% 9% D 8% 3% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 25 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 60% 32% 27% B 10% 18% 16% C 20% 7% 6% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 10% 38% 47% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 26 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 25% 27% 27% B 0% 18% 18% C 8% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 5% Fail 8% 4% 4% No Grade 58% 37% 38% Average 2.8 3.0 2.9 Letter Grade B- B B- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 27 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 55% 54% B 17% 28% 28% C 17% 9% 9% D 8% 3% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 3% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 28 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 63% 60% B 33% 23% 24% C 8% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 3% 4% Average 3.5 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 29 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 58% 58% B 17% 24% 24% C 8% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 4% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 30 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 13% 28% 36% B 0% 16% 18% C 0% 5% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 1% No Grade 88% 48% 37% Average 4.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 31 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 54% 54% B 0% 20% 20% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 8% 2% 3% No Grade 42% 15% 14% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 32 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 55% 55% B 0% 19% 20% C 9% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 36% 17% 16% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 33 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 75% 76% B 9% 18% 18% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 34 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 73% 71% 71% B 27% 20% 21% C 0% 5% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 35 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Using understandable language?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 75% 76% B 9% 20% 19% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 36 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 3d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 20% 46% 46% B 0% 21% 21% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 80% 20% 21% Average 4.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23 ## Page 37 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 69% 69% B 9% 19% 20% C 0% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 24 ## Page 38 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A #### 68% 69% B 0% 16% 17% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25 ## Page 39 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 64% 55% 55% B 27% 22% 22% C 0% 10% 10% D 9% 4% 4% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 5% 4% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26 ## Page 40 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A #### 67% 68% B 0% 17% 18% C 0% 8% 7% D 0% 4% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27 ## Page 41 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 65% 64% B 9% 19% 20% C 0% 8% 8% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 28 ## Page 42 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 64% 64% B 9% 20% 21% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 2% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 29 ## Page 43 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A #### 65% 64% B 0% 18% 20% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 3% 2% Average 4.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30 ## Page 44 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 70% 70% B 9% 18% 19% C 0% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.9 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31 ## Page 45 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 59% 59% B 9% 21% 21% C 0% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 9% 6% 6% Average 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32 ## Page 46 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 67% 64% B 0% 10% 12% C 0% 2% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 9% 19% 19% Average 4.0 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33 ## Page 47 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 36% 47% 51% B 0% 9% 11% C 0% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 64% 40% 33% Average 4.0 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34 ## Page 48 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 55% 53% B 45% 21% 22% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 0% 12% 13% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35 ## Page 49 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 64% 53% 54% B 36% 26% 26% C 0% 10% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36 ## Page 50 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 73% 58% 56% B 18% 24% 24% C 0% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 6% 9% Average 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37 ## Page 51 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 56% 54% B 0% 18% 18% C 0% 5% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 18% 17% 19% Average 4.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38 ## Page 52 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 40% 39% B 9% 13% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 36% 40% 40% Average 3.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39 ## Page 53 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Berkenkotter is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 3% ⇑ 4 0% 3% 4% 3 0% 6% 7% 2 0% 9% 10% 1 0% 13% 14% 0 Neutral #### 54% 53% -1 0% 6% 4% -2 0% 3% 2% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 0% Average 0.0 0.4 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40 ## Page 54 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Berkenkotter are? Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 3% 3% 3 0% 4% 4% 2 0% 7% 8% 1 0% 8% 10% 0 Appropriate #### 56% 60% -1 0% 5% 4% -2 0% 5% 3% -3 0% 5% 3% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 2% 1% Average 0.0 0.1 0.3 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 41 ## Page 55 Maria Berkenkotter Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Berkenkotter be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 90% 77% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 0% 13% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 10% 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 0% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 42 ## Page 56 AAppppeellllaattee JJuuddggee SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2200)) ## Page 57 Maria Berkenkotter Appellate Survey Overall Performance of Judge Berkenkotter Judge All District Berkenkotter Judges A 20% 28% B 0% 14% C 0% 3% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 80% 55% Average 4.0 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 58 NNoonn--AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1122)) ## Page 59 Maria Berkenkotter NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.0 Overall Average 3.6 3.6 3.0 QQ11. OOvveerraallll DDeemmeeaannoorr 33.66 3.6 3.0 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.6 3.4 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.7 3.0 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.6 3.6 2.7 Q5. Overall Application of 3.6 Law 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAverage GGradde Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 60 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.0 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.6 3.6 22.88 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.7 sense of dignity 3.6 3.3 1b. Treating participants politely 3.7 and with respect 3.6 2.9 1c. Conducting [his/her] 3.6 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.6 3.0 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.6 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 61 Maria Berkenkotter NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Fairness 3.0 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.6 3.3 2a. Giving participants an 3.7 opportunity to be heard 3.6 2.9 2b. Treating those involved with 3.6 the case without bias 3.5 3.0 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.6 represent themselves 3.5 3.0 2d. Giving each side enough 3.7 time to present his or her case 33.66 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 62 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.4 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.7 3.2 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.7 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.5 3b. Using language that 3.7 everyone can understand 3.7 3.5 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.7 hear what's being said 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 63 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.0 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.6 3.6 3.2 44a. BBegiinniing courtt on ttiime 33.55 3.4 3.4 4b. Maintaining appropriate 33..77 conttroll over proceeddiings 3.7 2.9 4c. Setting reasonable 3.6 sscchheedduulleess ffoorr ccaasseess 3.6 2.8 4d. Being prepared for [his/her] 3.7 cases 3.6 2.9 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.5 little wasted time 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 64 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 2.7 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.6 3.5 2.6 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 3.1 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.6 outside pressure 3.5 2.6 5c. Being able to identify and 3.6 analyze relevant facts 33.55 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Maria Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 65 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Berkenkotter is toward the defense or prosecution? Maria Berkenkotter -2.5 All District Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 66 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Berkenkotter's sentences? Maria Berkenkotter 5.0 All District Judges 0.0 All Trial Judges 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 67 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 87% 85% 81% 80% 78% 70% 70% 60% 58% 5500%% 40% 30% 20% 20% 17% 17% 10% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7%7% 7% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2%2% 2%2% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Berkenkotter All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 68 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 76% 73% B 25% 16% 18% C 0% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 25% 1% 2% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 2.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 69 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 79% 76% B 17% 13% 14% C 0% 4% 4% D 8% 1% 2% Fail 8% 2% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.3 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 70 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 77% 74% B 17% 13% 14% C 8% 4% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 17% 2% 3% No Grade 8% 1% 1% Average 2.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 71 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 71% 69% B 8% 17% 17% C 8% 4% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 17% 3% 4% No Grade 8% 3% 3% Average 3.0 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 72 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 77% 75% B 33% 14% 14% C 17% 4% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 3% No Grade 8% 2% 2% Average 3.3 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 73 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 75% 73% B 17% 14% 14% C 8% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 17% 3% 4% No Grade 8% 3% 3% Average 2.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 74 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 47% 49% B 0% 8% 9% C 17% 2% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 8% 2% 3% No Grade 33% 39% 35% Average 3.0 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 75 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 75% 72% B 42% 14% 14% C 8% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 8% 2% 3% No Grade 8% 5% 5% Average 3.0 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 76 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 78% 76% B 17% 13% 14% C 17% 4% 5% D 8% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 8% 2% 2% Average 3.2 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 77 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 78% 76% B 17% 16% 16% C 17% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 8% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 78 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 79% 78% B 17% 14% 14% C 17% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 8% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 79 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 61% 61% B 17% 24% 24% C 0% 7% 8% D 8% 2% 2% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 4% 4% Average 3.2 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 80 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 78% 77% B 42% 15% 15% C 8% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 8% 2% 2% Average 3.4 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 81 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 64% 62% B 17% 17% 17% C 8% 5% 5% D 8% 1% 1% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 17% 12% 13% Average 2.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 82 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 73% 71% B 25% 14% 14% C 8% 3% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 17% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 7% 8% Average 2.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 83 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 67% 66% B 42% 21% 20% C 0% 6% 7% D 8% 2% 2% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 3% 3% Average 2.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 84 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 67% 65% B 17% 16% 16% C 25% 4% 5% D 8% 2% 2% Fail 8% 2% 3% No Grade 8% 9% 9% Average 2.6 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 85 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 61% 59% B 33% 11% 12% C 0% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 8% 3% 3% No Grade 25% 20% 20% Average 3.1 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 86 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Berkenkotter on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 68% 66% B 17% 13% 14% C 17% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 17% 3% 4% No Grade 17% 10% 10% Average 2.6 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 87 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Berkenkotter is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 1% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 1% 1% 3 0% 2% 2% 2 0% 2% 2% 1 0% 4% 5% 0 Neutral 50% 84% 82% -1 0% 2% 3% -2 0% 2% 1% -3 0% 1% 1% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 50% 1% 1% Average -2.5 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 88 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Berkenkotter are? Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 #### 2% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 1% 2% 3 0% 2% 2% 2 0% 2% 2% 1 0% 3% 3% 0 Appropriate 0% 78% 76% -1 0% 5% 5% -2 0% 4% 4% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 1% Average 5.0 0.0 0.0 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 89 Maria Berkenkotter Non-Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Berkenkotter be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Berkenkotter Judges 2006 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 70% 87% 85% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 7% 8% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 0% 2% 2% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 20% 4% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 90 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 91 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The databases of names and addresses of the people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom were primarily provided by the Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council and the Denver County Courts. These three sources provided name and address data in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Starting in the second quarter of 2007, the data was provided quarterly. Where there were low sample counts, this data was supplemented by contacting district court administrators for additional sample of particular types of potential respondents. The data was then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected— quarterly starting in 2007. Depending on the available number of names and the count of already received surveys for a particular judge, either all or a random sample of names were drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had appeared. Survey: Each person whose name was drawn was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent would be sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent follow-up postcard. If the person did not respond after the follow-up postcard, a second questionnaire and letter were sent and in some instances a second follow-up postcard was sent after the second letter and questionnaire. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney responses, telephone interviews were conducted with attorneys who had not responded to the mailed questionnaires. Over 900 interviews were completed by telephone. 1 ## Page 92 Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2008 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney respondents these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The estimated response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. The true response rates are likely considerably higher than shown because of the relatively high percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed in court. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A similar table showing the response counts and estimated cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 93 Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 841 306 93 2 440 58.8% Defense Attorneys 1,082 341 102 2 637 65.0% Other Attorneys Crmnl 809 418 27 3 361 46.2% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1,395 312 171 13 899 73.4% Other Attorneys Civil 598 280 53 2 263 48.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role 852 289 77 2 484 62.5% Total Attorneys 5,577 1,946 523 24 3,084 61.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 8,170 5,431 1,417 34 1,288 19.1% Defendant 13,787 9,091 3,737 25 934 9.3% Victim 295 222 63 2 8 3.4% Witness 1,886 1,342 453 5 86 6.0% Other 5,396 3,532 1,301 43 520 12.7% Civil Litigant 6,552 4,390 1,109 21 1,032 19.0% Witness 46 31 5 0 10 24.4% Other 59 29 15 0 15 34.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 5,065 2,598 1,843 12 612 19.0% Total Non-attorneys 41,256 26,666 9,943 142 4,505 14.4% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 10,214 4,940 460 22 4,792 49.1% Total Other 10,240 4,946 460 22 4,812 49.2% Total 57,073 33,558 10,926 188 12,401 26.9% 3 ## Page 94 Results: The results of the Survey are in three main sections: Attorney respondents, Appellate Judge respondents and Non-attorney respondents. Within the Attorney and Non-attorney section are subsections of graphs displaying average grades for each section of the questionnaire and each question and tables showing the percentage distribution of grades. The Appellate Judge section is new this year, and shows the percentage distribution of the grades given by the appellate judges on overall performance. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district judges, and all trial judges for which 2008 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.67 to 3.99 B—= 2.67 to 2.99 C—= 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.66 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for district judges surveyed in 2008, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2008 survey. Projectability: Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%- confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self- selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. 4 ## Page 95 While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often— albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 5 ## Page 96 Maria Berkenkotter Responses by Type Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal Defense Attorneys 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 14 10 0 0 4 28.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 13 4 1 0 8 66.7% Other Attorneys Civil 5 5 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 34 21 1 0 12 63.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 12 7 5 0 0 0.0% Civil Litigant 53 36 9 0 8 18.2% Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 66 44 14 0 8 84.6% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 6 2 0 0 4 66.7% Total Others 32 8 0 0 24 25.0% Grand Total: 132 73 15 0 44 37.6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 97 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 98 Commission on Judicial Performance 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ _ JUDGE [NAME] 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Last Name]? _ 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 not 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/NS). _ DK 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge [Last h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name]? i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ DK _ 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 99 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward b. Makings sure all participants understand the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 completely unbiased, circle “0.” c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution d. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Last Name] in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? DK ________________________________________________________ 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even ___________________________________________________________ when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] {Question 3d is asked only regarding district judges.} 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 100 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 JUDGE[NAME] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Last Name]? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please understanding for those who appear place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 101 DK Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Last Name] c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Last Name] ? e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Willing to make decision without regard to 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or _ cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, _ circle “0.” _ _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward _ Defense Neutral Prosecution _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 _ 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next [Last Name] ? question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands _ down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” _ Sentences Appropriate Sentences _ Too Light Sentences Too Harsh _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Back Page

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
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026