← All judges

Steven L. Bernard

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards(Retain)2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2016 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 63.4% yes
    1,331,691 yes · 770,463 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report 2013 Interim Survey Report 2011 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 9 to 0, with one recusal, that Judge Steven L. Bernard BE RETAINED. Judge Bernard joined the Colorado Court of Appeals on July 5, 2006.  Judge Bernard was born and raised in Colorado Springs and received undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Colorado.  Judge Bernard began his legal career in the District Attorney’s Office in the Seventeenth Judicial District, and was promoted to Chief Trial Deputy in 1982.  From 1993 to 2004 he served as the Assistant District Attorney.  Judge Bernard was a Chief Deputy District Attorney at the District Attorney’s Office in the Nineteenth Judicial District from 2005 until his appointment to the Court. He also served on various committees, including the governing board of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council.  He is a past president of the Adams County Bar Association.  Currently, Judge Bernard serves on the leadership council of the Colorado Institute for Excellence in Judicial Education, the judiciary’s Probation Standing Committee, the Executive Committee of the Colorado Bar Association’s Criminal Law Section, and the Executive Committee of Our Courts. The Commission reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding Judge Bernard’s performance, read opinions he authored, observed him in oral arguments, reviewed his self-evaluation, and conducted a personal interview.  Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Bernard be retained or not be retained in office?”  Of attorneys completing the survey 64% recommended to retain, 32% recommended not to retain, and 5% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Among judges completing the survey 98% recommended to retain and 2% recommended not to retain. Attorney survey responses indicate that Judge Bernard’s performance is strong in the area of being prepared for oral argument.  Judge Bernard received relatively low marks in making decisions based upon the law and the facts, and particularly low scores for being fair and impartial.  Numerous attorneys stated that he has a bias in favor of the prosecution in criminal cases.  Judge Bernard was commended by several attorneys and judges for the high quality of his writing.  The Commission found Judge Bernard to be well prepared for oral argument and courteous and respectful to attorneys appearing before the Court.  Both attorney and judge surveys scored him below average in the area of refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided.  The Commission’s review of several of Judge Bernard’s opinions confirmed this.  The Commission’s review of Judge Bernard’s most recent opinions, as a whole, do not reflect a prosecutorial bias.  The Commission believes Judge Bernard should remain vigilant to ensure that he is not viewed as favoring the prosecution and urges him to take additional steps to understand the reasons for these criticisms.  The Commission concludes that Judge Bernard is a hard-working judge on the Court of Appeals and commends him for his continued efforts to teach about the legal profession.
  • 2008 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 73.3% yes
    1,280,223 yes · 465,032 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 State Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Steven L. Bernard BE RETAINED. Judge Bernard was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2006. He graduated from the University of Colorado, where he received both a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and his law degree. Judge Bernard served on the governing board of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Association, and was a member of the Supreme Court Nominating Committee from1997 to 2002. Judge Bernard was named Lecturer of the Year (2002) for contributions to educational programs sponsored by the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council. Before his appointment to the Court, Judge Bernard served as Chief Deputy District Attorney in Weld County and was also Assistant District Attorney in Adams County . During this time, he was a frequent lecturer on a variety of legal subjects, including the law of evidence, constitutional law, and trial techniques. Judge Bernard has demonstrated that he is a fair, impartial, thoughtful and hard-working judge. Attorneys who responded to survey questions rated Judge Bernard above average for making decisions without regard to possible criticism, and below average for (1) writing opinions that are clear and (2) being prepared for oral argument. Attorneys commented that Judge Bernard is highly respected and conscientious with a good judicial demeanor. He is also viewed as being a very bright and capable jurist. Judges rated him as comparable in most respects to other appellate judges. The Commission also reviewed various opinions that Judge Bernard wrote. His opinions were well-written, reflecting a strong grasp of the issues. Overall, 86% of attorneys surveyed and 96% of judges surveyed supported Judge Bernard’s retention, with 75% of the attorneys and 85% of the judges strongly recommending that he be retained in office.

Surveys & reports

  • 2016 cycle
    • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee SStteevvee LL.. BBeerrnnaarrdd 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Steve L. Bernard Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Bernard: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides a copy of the questionnaire that was used for attorneys. 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 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys 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. Attorneys assigned Judge Steve L. Bernard an overall average grade of 3.07. Judge Bernard Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Bernard Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 2006 3.72 9 2007 3.32 26 2008 3.30 39 2009 3.07 40 2010 2.91 48 2012 2.84 71 All Years 3.07 233 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SStteevvee LL.. BBeerrnnaarrdd ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 223)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Steve L. Bernard Judge Bernard All COA Judges* Sample Size = 233 A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 52% 13% 9% 8% 13% 4% 2.88 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 49% 16% 8% 6% 3% 17% 3.21 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 51% 10% 6% 2% 7% 24% 3.28 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 55% 12% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.34 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 42% 4% 2% 0% 1% 52% 3.77 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 48% 15% 8% 3% 3% 24% 3.33 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.30 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 37% 26% 18% 10% 4% 5% 2.86 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 37% 21% 19% 13% 5% 6% 2.77 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 41% 26% 16% 2% 1% 13% 3.20 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 43% 13% 10% 6% 7% 21% 3.01 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 39% 16% 12% 13% 18% 2% 2.46 2.83 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 38% 18% 12% 7% 13% 12% 2.70 3.07 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 2.83 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.07 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge Steve L. Bernard Judge Bernard All COA Judges* How strongly do you recommend that Judge Bernard be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 35% 43% Recommend retain 19% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 12% 13% Recommend not retain 10% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 25% 9% Total Retain 54% 69% Neither 12% 13% Total Not Retain 35% 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 35% 42% Recommend retain 19% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 12% 13% Recommend not retain 10% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 25% 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 1% Total Retain 54% 68% Neither 12% 13% Total Not Retain 35% 17% Don't Know 0% 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Steve L. Bernard Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades 3.07 Overall average grade 3.25 3.30 Question 2 average grade 3.42 2.88 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.14 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.21 answer questions. 3.35 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.28 economic status. 3.48 3.34 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.42 3.77 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.77 3.33 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.36 2.83 Question 3 average grade 3.08 2.86 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.11 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.77 basis of the Court's decision. 3.02 3.20 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.29 3.01 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.18 2.46 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.83 2.70 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.07 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Bernard All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 8 Judge Steve L. Bernard Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Bernard be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 35% Strongly recommend retain 43% 19% Somewhat recommend retain 26% Excluding DK Respondents 12% Neither retain nor not retain Judge 13% Bernard All COA Judges* Total Retain 54% 69% 10% Somewhat recommend not retain Neither 12% 13% 8% Total Not Retain 35% 17% 25% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 35% Strongly recommend retain 42% 19% Somewhat recommend retain 26% 12% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Including DK Respondents Judge 10% Somewhat recommend not retain Bernard All COA Judges* 8% Total Retain 54% 68% Neither 12% 13% 25% Total Not Retain 35% 17% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total DK 0% 1% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Bernard All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. The list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a COA judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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. 7 ## Page 11 Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” 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 Court of Appeals 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 State 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. 8 ## Page 12 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2012, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 17.5% for Judge Bernard and 17.7% for all Court of Appeals judges. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2012 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Bernard is 25.9% and the cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges is 21.7%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and the cooperation rate for Judge Bernard. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 to 2012. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Bernard 1471 1093 140 233 17.5% All Court of 13724 10173 1333 2199 17.7% Appeals Judges* * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Sample Size = 2199 Grade (0.0 to A B C D Fail DK/NA 4.0 scale) Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 54% 18% 10% 6% 7% 6% 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 17% 8% 4% 3% 15% 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 57% 10% 6% 3% 3% 21% 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 7% 4% 3% 14% 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 49% 4% 2% 0% 1% 44% 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 15% 8% 3% 3% 20% 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 46% 25% 13% 6% 4% 6% 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 24% 12% 8% 5% 6% 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 24% 12% 3% 2% 10% 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 8% 5% 4% 19% 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 47% 18% 12% 11% 10% 2% 2.83 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 18% 10% 5% 6% 14% 3.07 Question 3 Average Grade 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 43% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 69% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 42% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 68% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 16 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 17 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6
    • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Steve L. Bernard 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Steve L. Bernard, 214 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 119 agreed they had worked with Judge Bernard enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 119 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Combined 3.43 Attorneys 2.98 District and Appellate Judges 3.67 Table 1 Judge Steve L. Bernard Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.43 2.98 3.67 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 86% Attorneys 64% District & Appellate Judges 98% Table 2 Judge Steve L. Bernard Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 86% 64% 98% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Steve L. Bernard Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.02 3.67 Writing 2.94 N/A 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 267 8 42 42% 61% District and Appellate 211 0 77 50% 27% Judges *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Bernard, 108 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 42 agreed they had worked with Judge Bernard enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 42 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,482 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. A total of 161 invitations were sent to 27 staff attorneys working in the appellate courts. Of these, 81 surveys were completed and an additional 11 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 57% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 88%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015 and closed on February 22nd 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 5 ## Page 8 Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed with reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were e-mailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Judge’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Judge’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice 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. d. Analysis: 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Bernard be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Steve L. Bernard Total Retain 64% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 32% Figure 3 100% 80% 59% 60% 49% 40% 22% 17% 20% 15% 9% 10% 9% 5% 6% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Bernard All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Bernard on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.43 Appellate General Overall Average 3.02 3.55 Being prepared for oral argument 3.75 3.94 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.95 3.47 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.42 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.67 economic status 3.29 Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.48 questions 3.44 3.22 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 2.44 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Bernard 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Appellate General Judge Steve L. Bernard All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 41 Average Judges Being fair and impartial toward 45% 14% 5% 5% 29% 2% 2.44 3.22 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 60% 7% 5% 10% -- 19% 3.44 3.48 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 60% 10% -- -- 12% 19% 3.29 3.67 economic status Being courteous toward 62% 7% 10% 5% 2% 14% 3.42 3.47 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 43% 2% -- -- -- 55% 3.95 3.94 communications Being prepared for oral 62% 10% 5% -- -- 24% 3.75 3.55 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.02 3.43 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Bernard on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.18 Appellate Writing Overall Average 2.94 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.13 decided 2.66 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.98 facts 2.71 3.39 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.13 3.45 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.41 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.16 Court's decision 3.13 3.22 Writing opinions that are clear 3.08 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Bernard 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Appellate Writing Judge Steve L. Bernard All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 38 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 42% 37% 11% 8% 3% -- 3.08 3.22 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 47% 29% 16% 5% 3% -- 3.13 3.16 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 47% 18% 8% -- 3% 24% 3.41 3.45 Making decisions without regard to 50% 13% 8% 8% 5% 16% 3.13 3.39 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 42% 24% 8% 16% 11% -- 2.71 2.98 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 37% 21% 3% 8% 16% 16% 2.66 3.13 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 2.94 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 11 ## Page 14 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Bernard, 106 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 77 agreed they had worked with Judge Bernard enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 77 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 11 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,983 survey invitations were sent and 613 responded and 611 completed the survey. The overall response rate was 31% and the completion rate was 99%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 6th. A reminder email was sent on January 13th to those who had not yet responded. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on November 10th. A reminder email was sent on November 23rd to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 12 ## Page 15 d. Analysis 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 attorneys 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Bernard be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Judge Steve L. Bernard Total Retain 98% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 2% Figure 6 100% 79% 78% 80% 60% 40% 19% 20% 20% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Bernard All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 7 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.69 3.67 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.92 3.92 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.84 economic status 3.86 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.74 3.68 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.53 decided 3.37 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.61 facts 3.64 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.77 3.84 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.64 3.69 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.59 Court's decision 3.66 Writing opinions that are clear 3.58 3.57 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Bernard 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Appellate Individual Questions Judge Steve L. Bernard All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 77 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 70% 20% 9% 2% -- -- 3.57 3.58 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 79% 11% 9% 2% -- -- 3.66 3.59 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 64% 13% 6% -- -- 17% 3.69 3.64 Making decisions without regard to 83% 6% 4% -- -- 6% 3.84 3.77 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 70% 17% 9% -- -- 4% 3.64 3.61 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 49% 28% 15% -- -- 9% 3.37 3.53 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 74% 19% 6% -- -- -- 3.68 3.74 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 79% 9% 2% -- -- 11% 3.86 3.84 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 74% 2% 2% -- -- 21% 3.92 3.92 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.67 3.69 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Steve L. Bernard 16
  • 2008 cycle
    • 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee SStteevveenn LL.. BBeerrnnaarrdd 2008 Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Steven L. Bernard Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO. 80203 Dear Judge Bernard : Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of attorneys who have had cases with opinions authored or co-authored by those appellate judges and justices standing for retention in the next general election, and a second survey among all the State’s district judges, Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices. This report contains the results of these two surveys, and is divided into four main sections: • Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the overall average grade you received on questions 2a through 2l, and on 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. • Survey of Judges Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1 through 10 on the Survey of Judges questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by the trail judges to each substantive question in the survey. The judges 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 Survey of Judges questionnaire is also at the back of this report. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 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, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3344)) ## Page 4 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey Overall Average Grade and Average by Question 3.3 OOvveerraallll aavveerraaggee ooff 22aa tthhrroouugghh 22ll 3.4 3.4 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.4 3.1 2b. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.3 2c. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.1 Court's decision. 3.2 3.4 2d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.4 2e. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.5 qquueessttiioonnss.. 33.55 3.8 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.4 3.1 2g. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.0 33.11 2h. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.2 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.6 status. 3.7 3.8 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.7 3.9 2k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.9 3.3 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.6 22..00 22..55 33..00 33..55 44..00 Average Grade Judge Bernard 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Bernard Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 5 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 80% 75% 73% 70% 68% 61% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 17% 16% 14% 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Bernard 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Bernard Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 6 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 64% 58% B 18% 20% C 3% 9% D 6% 4% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 6% 7% Average 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 7 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Writing opinions that are clear?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 53% 50% B 29% 29% C 3% 11% D 9% 5% Fail 6% 1% No Grade 0% 4% Average 3.1 3.3 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 8 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 58% 46% B 15% 32% C 9% 11% D 9% 5% Fail 6% 2% No Grade 3% 4% Average 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 9 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 56% 50% B 29% 33% C 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 3% 5% Average 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 10 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 41% 51% B 18% 19% C 0% 3% D 6% 2% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 35% 24% Average 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 11 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 62% 47% B 6% 16% C 6% 6% D 0% 3% Fail 0% 2% No Grade 26% 26% Average 3.8 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 12 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 56% 50% B 18% 23% C 12% 12% D 9% 8% Fail 6% 6% No Grade 0% 1% Average 3.1 3.0 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 13 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 47% 43% B 24% 21% C 12% 12% D 0% 3% Fail 9% 4% No Grade 9% 17% Average 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 14 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 53% 58% B 9% 10% C 3% 3% D 0% 1% Fail 3% 0% No Grade 32% 28% Average 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 15 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Being courteous toward attorneys?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 62% 56% B 6% 18% C 3% 3% D 0% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 29% 23% Average 3.8 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 16 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2k. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 44% 48% B 6% 5% C 0% 1% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 50% 46% Average 3.9 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 17 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 2l. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Being prepared for oral argument?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 38% 51% B 12% 14% C 6% 4% D 3% 1% Fail 3% 1% No Grade 38% 28% Average 3.3 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 18 Steven L. Bernard Attorney Survey 4. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Bernard be retained or not be retained in office? 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard Strongly Recommend 75% 73% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 11% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 6% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 11% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 19 DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggee SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110077)) ## Page 20 SStteevveenn LL. BBeerrnnaarrdd Survey of Judges Overall Average Grade and Average by Question 3.7 Overall average of 1 through 9 3.7 3.8 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 33.77 3.6 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.5 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.6 the Court's decision. 33..66 3.6 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.6 3.9 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.8 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.7 facts. 3.6 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.6 decided. 3.7 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.9 economic status. 3.9 3.9 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.9 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Judge Bernard 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Bernard Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 21 SStteevveenn LL. BBeerrnnaarrdd Survey of Judges Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 85% 81% 8800%% 70% 67% 66% 60% 50% 40% 30% 22% 19% 20% 17% 14% 11% 9% 10% 4% 3% 1% 1% 00%% 00%% 00%% 00%% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Bernard 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Bernard Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 22 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 1. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 57% 56% B 11% 14% C 2% 3% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 31% 27% Average 3.8 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 23 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 2. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Writing opinions that are clear?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 50% 46% B 19% 28% C 3% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 26% 21% Average 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 24 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 3. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 52% 52% B 18% 23% C 4% 3% D 1% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 25% 21% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 25 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 4. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 38% 38% B 16% 19% C 2% 3% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 43% 40% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 26 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 5. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 63% 62% B 11% 11% C 0% 2% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 26% 25% Average 3.9 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 27 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 6. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Making reasoned decision based upon the law and facts?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 56% 53% B 16% 23% C 2% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 24% 20% Average 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 28 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 7. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 52% 51% B 14% 18% C 1% 2% D 3% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 30% 28% Average 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 29 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 8. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 62% 63% B 4% 6% C 1% 1% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 33% 29% Average 3.9 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 30 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 9. How would you grade Judge Bernard on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard A 49% 49% B 3% 5% C 0% 0% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 49% 47% Average 3.9 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 31 Steven L. Bernard Survey of Judges 1100.. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Bernard be retained or not be retained in office? 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Bernard Judge Bernard Strongly Recommend 85% 81% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 11% 17% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 1% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 0% 0% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 32 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 33 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with names and addresses of attorneys who had a case decided by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, in which the decision had been authored or co-authored by one of the two Supreme Court justices or one of the six Court of Appeals judges standing for retention 2008. Talmey-Drake Research was also provided with the list of Colorado judges and justices. Two surveys were conducted, one among attorneys who had opinions authored or co-authored by one of the six Court of Appeals judges or two Supreme Court justices facing a retention vote in 2008, and a second survey of Colorado district and appellate judges and justices. Questionnaire: Copies of the two questionnaires used are provided at the end of this report. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in a number of different areas. These grades were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The 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 overall response rate for each survey as well as the response rate for your surveys. Overall Response Rate No Response Respondent Type Total Sent Response Undeliverable Other Completed Rate Attorneys 838 324 139 21 354 50.6% Judges 178 64 7 0 107 62.6% Response Rate for Judge Bernard No Response Respondent Type Total Sent Response Undeliverable Other Completed Rate Attorneys 97 41 18 4 34 43.0% Judges 178 64 7 0 107 62.6% 1 ## Page 34 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Judge Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to the combined averages for the Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices about whom surveys in 2008 were conducted. 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— = 3.68 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 0.67 This section also includes a comparative column of results showing the results for that question for the other appellate judges justices about whom surveys were conducted in 2008. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and judges. 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. 2 ## Page 35 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. 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. 3 ## Page 36 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 37 Additional Comments _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Appellate Questionnaire _ Evaluation of _ JUDGE FULL NAME _ _ _ 1. Which of the following types of cases have you _ appealed in which Judge [Last Name] _ authored or co-authored the decision? (Please circle all that apply.) _ _ Civil . 1 Criminal . 2 _ Domestic . 3 _ Juvenile . 4 Other . 5 _ _ ## Page 38 2. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F 3. Comments about Judge [Last Name]’s relating to any of your for fail, please grade the Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a responses to the previous questions? specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to _ grade Judge [Last Name], please circle the number indicating “Can’t Grade.” _ Can’t _ A B C D F Grade _ a. Being fair and impartial toward each _ side of the case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Writing opinions that are clear. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Writing opinions that adequately explain _ the basis of the Court’s decision. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Allowing parties to present their arguments 4. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how and answer questions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in f. Making decisions without regard to office, or not retained in office? possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 g. Making reasoned decisions based upon Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 the law and facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 h. Refraining from reaching issues that Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office . 2 need not be decided. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 i. Treating parties equally regardless of And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge race, sex or economic status. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Last Name]? j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ l. Being prepared for oral argument. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this Please use back page for any additional comments. survey is very much appreciated. ## Page 39 J. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge JoAnn L. Vogt in the space below. If you would like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Survey of District Judges _ Regarding Appellate Judges _ _ Please answer the enclosed questions about each of the two Supreme Court justices and the eight Court of Appeals judges who are standing for retention in November 2008. For questions 1 through 9 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” indicates you believe the judge or justice is doing excellent on that aspect of his or her job, a “D” indicates that you believe he or she is doing Please mail the completed questionnaire in poorly on that aspect of the job and an “F” indicates that the enclosed postage-paid envelope. you believe the judge or justice is failing at that task. B’s and C’s indicate that you believe the judge or justice is Thank you. performing between excellent and poor on the particular task. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” Thank you. Page 12 ## Page 40 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. H. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge No Sandra I. Rothenberg in the space below. If you would like A B C D F Grade to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 a sheet with additional comments. Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 2. Writing opinions that are clear. I. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Diana L. Terry in the space below. If you would like to make No A B C D F Grade more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 with additional comments. Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Continued on Back Page Page 2 Page 11 ## Page 41 F. Please write comments you would like to make about 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Judge Jerry N. Jones in the space below. If you would like Court’s decision. to make more comments than space allows, feel free to No attach a sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. G. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Gilbert Roman in the space below. If you would No A B C D F Grade like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 attach a sheet with additional comments. _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 10 Page 3 ## Page 42 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. D. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge David M. Furman in the space below. If you would like to No make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a A B C D F Grade sheet with additional comments. Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and E. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge facts. Robert D. Hawthorne in the space below. If you would like No to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach A B C D F Grade a sheet with additional comments. Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 4 Page 9 ## Page 43 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be Gregory J. Hobbs in the space below. If you would like to decided. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Steven L. Bernard. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ C. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or Steven L. Bernard in the space below. If you would like to economic status. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Judge Steven L. Bernard. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 8 Page 5 ## Page 44 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 10. [Continued] No Judge Judge Judge 6 A B C D F Grade Jones Roman Rothenberg Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation . 3 3 3 Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Judge Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Terry Vogt Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Justice Justice Eid Hobbs Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 A . Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Allison H. Eid in the space below. If you would like to make Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet Undecided or don’t know enough with additional comments. to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 _ Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 _ Judge Judge Judge _ Bernard Furman Hawthorne _ Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough _ to make recommendation. 3 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 _ _ Page 6 Page 7

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