Brian D. Boatright
Supreme Court
Meets Standards4 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleSupreme CourtCommission vote: 8 for · 0 against · 3 recusedMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 62.8% yes1,571,597 yes · 930,272 no50% needed to retainThe State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice Brian D. Boatright MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 8–0 with three recusals. 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 Boatright was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2011 and served as the Chief Justice from January 2021 through July 2024. The Commission finds that his opinions are thoughtful and she has an excellent judicial demeanor. Justice Boatright did an excellent job in leading the entire Colorado court system, including the Supreme Court during his time as Chief Justice. During his tenure he implemented the “workplace initiative” program and assigned all supreme court justices (including himself) as liaison to specific Colorado Court Administrative Divisions. The Commission finds that Justice Boatright is courteous to all parties in the courtroom and his opinions are well-written and understandable. The Commission feels that Justice Brian D. Boatright is a valuable asset to the Supreme Court and to the State of Colorado Judicial Branch.The evaluation of Justice Boatright included a personal interview, reviews of a selection of written opinions, a review of his self-evaluation, and a review of survey responses from attorneys and judges. The Justice received an overall score of 3.6 out of 4 from the survey participants, which includes fellow judges and attorneys. To the question if Justice Boatright meets performance standards 79% of attorneys answered yes, 98% of judges answered yes, and 13% of attorneys had no opinion. A total of 19 attorneys and 44 judges responded to the survey.
- 2014 retention cycleSupreme CourtMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 68.6% yes1,072,580 yes · 491,362 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance by a vote of 10 to 0 recommends that Justice Brian D. Boatright BE RETAINED. Justice Boatright was sworn in as a Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court in November 2011. He graduated from Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri in 1984 and received his law degree from the University of Denver in 1988. He spent 9 years as a Deputy District Attorney practicing in Jefferson and Gilpin Counties. He then served for 12 years as a District Court Judge in the First Judicial District presiding over criminal, probate, civil, and juvenile matters. Justice Boatright has served on numerous boards and committees, including the Juvenile Services Planning Committee, Children Youth Leadership Commission, Plain English Jury Instruction Committee, Judicial Training Committee, and Court Improvement Committee. As a member of the Colorado Supreme Court he has taken a special interest in community outreach, regularly presenting to civic organizations and educational institutions. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Justice Boatright, read opinions that he authored, observed him in court, reviewed his self-evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding his performance. Among the survey questions was "how strongly do you recommend that Justice Boatright be retained or not retained in office?" Of attorneys responding to this question, 66% recommended to retain, 15% not to retain, and 19% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of judges responding to this question, 97% recommended to retain, 1% not to retain, and 2% made no recommendation regarding retention. The survey responses of district and other appellate judges indicate that Justice Boatright is fair and conscientious, and that he brings a common sense approach to the Court. The attorney responses to the survey indicate Justice Boatright's performance is strong in courtesy toward attorneys and allowing them the opportunity to present arguments. In most other categories Justice Boatright’s scores were comparable to those given other Justices in past evaluations. The attorney survey responses reflected concerns in the areas of writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision and making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. The Commission reviewed a number of opinions written by Justice Boatright and found they often lacked the quality of composition expected of a Supreme Court Justice, and at times did not adequately set forth the analysis supporting them. In his interview, Justice Boatright indicated that he has taken steps to improve his writing skills. The Commission believes that Justice Boatright's continued attention to this area will help him better communicate the legal analysis supporting his opinions. Justice Boatright brings to the Court a strong work ethic as well as a practical perspective to decision-making. Justice Boatright makes a positive and valued contribution toward improving the collegiality and collaborative spirit of the Court.
- 2008 retention cycleTrial Court · Gilpin · GilpinMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 73.0% yes163,517 yes · 60,357 no50% needed to retainReports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously and strongly recommends that Judge Brian D. Boatright BE RETAINED. Background: Judge Boatright was appointed to the First Judicial District Court bench in August 1999. His docket is limited to juvenile matters. Prior to having been appointed to the bench, Judge Boatright was a Deputy District Attorney and in private practice for several years. Judge Boatright is very much involved in community service. He speaks frequently at schools in the Jefferson County School District, as well as in leadership programs in Golden, Lakewood, and Jefferson County. He has also coached young peoples’ baseball for the last five years. Strengths: Judge Boatright is a conscientious professional who is bright and articulate with an outstanding demeanor. He is knowledgeable both in the rules of evidence and in the law. He manages his caseload very efficiently, and is well prepared for court. He continues to educate himself on the intricacies of the law regarding some of the cases on which he must rule. He is patient and courteous to all who appear before him. He is well-respected both by the legal and non-legal communities. Weaknesses: The Commission has not recognized and has been unable to discover any weakness which are worthy of note. Recommendation: Of the attorneys polled, 95% recommended retention. Of non-attorneys polled, 97% recommended retention. Judge Boatright’s scores in most areas are at or near the top of the range for all judges in the state who were surveyed. The Commission strongly recommends that Judge Brian D. Boatright BE RETAINED.
- 2002 retention cycleTrial Court · Gilpin · GilpinMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 72.3% yes108,047 yes · 41,469 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Brian D. Boatright BE RETAINED. Although Judge Boatright has been a judge for only two and three-quarter years, the Commission finds that he has done an outstanding job in all areas. Judge Boatright presides over civil, criminal, domestic and juvenile cases. He is bright, articulate and a conscientious professional who exhibits an excellent demeanor. He is very knowledgeable of the rules of evidence and the law. The judge is patient, courteous and manages his docket very efficiently. The Commission commends the judge for striving to achieve a balance between his personal and professional life. He is well-prepared for court and works hard at learning the complexity of the civil law. Judge Boatright has an excellent record of community service. He is a past president of the Jefferson County Bar Association and is a frequent speaker at schools in the district. He is also a speaker at local leadership programs in Jefferson County, Golden and Lakewood each year. Of the attorneys polled, 94% recommend retention, 3% recommended not to retain and 3% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys polled, 91% voted for retention, 3% voted not to retain and 5% had no opinion. Judge Boatright’s scores in almost all of the areas measured were at or near the top of the range for all of the judges who were the subject of the judicial poll.
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Chief Justice Br ian D. Boatright 2021 Ju dicial Performance Survey Report Supreme C ourt Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C 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 Chief Justice Boatright, 63 attorneys and judges completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 63 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 3.6 3.5 3 2 1 0 Justice Boatright All Supreme Court Justices All Supreme Court Justice Boatright Justices Overall Grade 3.5 3.6 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 96% 94% 86% 80% 67% 60% 40% 22% 20% 11% 11% 6% 4% 4% 0% Justice Boatright All Supreme Court Justice Boatright 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 Boatright Court Boatright Court Justices Justices Yes, meets 67% 86% 94% 96% performance standards No, does not meet 22% 11% 6% 4% performance standards No opinion 11% 4% 0% 0% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 General (Attorneys) 3.7 3.1 Writing (Attorneys) 3.4 3.6 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 Justice Boatright All Supreme Court Justices All Justice Supreme Boatright Court Justices General (Attorneys) 3.5 3.7 Writing (Attorneys) 3.1 3.4 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 3.7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 84 25% 35% 29 Judges 34 15% - 34 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Justice Boatright Overall 3.5 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.7 Supreme Court Justice Boatright Justices Number of Responses Overall Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.0 3.4 29 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.7 3.8 28 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.4 3.6 26 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.8 3.9 29 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.9 4.0 21 Being prepared for oral argument 3.3 3.7 26 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Boatright Overall 3.1 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.4 Justice Boatright Supreme Court Number of Overall Justices Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3 3.3 24 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.8 3.3 24 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.6 3.6 24 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.1 3.5 26 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 2.9 3.3 28 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.3 3.5 26 not be decided 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Boatright Overall 3.6 Supreme Court Justices Overall 3.7 Supreme Justice Court Number of Boatright Justices Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.5 3.6 34 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.6 3.7 34 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.6 3.7 30 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.6 3.7 33 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.6 3.6 34 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.7 3.7 34 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.7 3.7 33 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.8 3.8 34 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Boatright, 63 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 63 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2 020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2 021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 10 ## Page 11 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 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 11 ## Page 12 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 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 reports in 2021. A ll 192 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 17 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. A total of 85 responses were received for a response rate of 44%. 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 2021. 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 29 survey invitations sent. A total of 7 responses were received for a response rate of 24%. 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 February 1st, 2021 and a reminder was sent on February 8th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2 021. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on February 1st, 2021. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2021. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 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 338 84 0 29 35% Judges 221 34 0 34 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright 14 - 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Justice Br ian D. Boatright 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 Boatright, 72 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 72 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 552 24 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 2 Total Attorneys - 26 Judges 260 46 Total N/A 72 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 Brian D. Boatright 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.6 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Justice Boatright Overall Justice Boatright Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.6 71 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 79% 98% 19 44 standards No, does not meet performance 8% 2% 2 1 standards No opinion 13% 0% 3 0 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 General 3.9 3.3 Writing 3.7 Score Attorneys Score Judges Score Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges General 3.4 3.9 22 42 Writing 3.3 3.7 23 44 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report – At torney Survey General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) Justice Boatright Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.2 22 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 3.6 22 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) Justice Boatright Number of Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.4 21 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.5 21 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.7 21 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.4 22 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.3 23 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.3 21 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report – Ju dge Survey General Evaluation Questions (Judges) Justice Boatright Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.9 42 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 3.9 35 Appellate Writing (Judges) Justice Boatright Number of Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.6 44 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.6 44 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.6 36 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.7 44 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.7 44 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.8 41 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 8 ## Page 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Boatright, 72 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 72 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 9 ## Page 10 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. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 10 ## Page 11 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Brian D. Boatright 11 ## Page 12 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 Brian D. Boatright 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 Brian D. Boatright 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 Brian D. Boatright 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 Brian D. Boatright 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 Brian D. Boatright 16
- 2014 cycle
- 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BBrriiaann DD.. BBooaattrriigghhtt 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Supreme Court ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Brian D. Boatright Colorado Supreme Court 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Justice Boatright: 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 the Supreme Court in 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 the justices 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 Justice Brian D. Boatright an overall average grade of 3.21. Justice Boatright Average Attorney Grades by Year Justice Boatright Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 3.21 37 All Years 3.21 37 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional justices will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee BBrriiaann DD.. BBooaattrriigghhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3377)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Justice Brian D. Boatright All Supreme Justice Court Justices Boatright Sample Size = 37 Excluding Justice A B C D Fail DK/NA Boatright* Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 43% 24% 11% 5% 5% 11% 3.06 3.20 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 57% 22% 5% 0% 0% 16% 3.61 3.39 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 49% 14% 11% 0% 3% 24% 3.39 3.52 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 54% 30% 5% 0% 0% 11% 3.55 3.37 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 51% 8% 0% 0% 0% 41% 3.86 3.85 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 24% 19% 22% 3% 5% 27% 2.74 3.40 Question 2 Average Grade 3.37 3.46 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 53% 20% 13% 0% 13% 0% 3.00 3.18 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 47% 27% 13% 0% 13% 0% 2.93 3.11 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 47% 20% 20% 0% 0% 13% 3.31 3.33 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 60% 7% 20% 0% 7% 7% 3.21 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 47% 13% 27% 0% 13% 0% 2.80 2.87 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 47% 13% 27% 0% 7% 7% 3.00 3.08 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.04 3.13 Overall Average Grade: 3.21 3.29 * Includes only the Supreme Court justices 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 Supreme Court Justices Percentage Justice Brian D. Boatright All Supreme Justice Court Justices Boatright Excluding Justice Boatright* How strongly do you recommend that Justice Boatright be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 39% 50% Recommend retain 18% 25% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 24% 10% Recommend not retain 9% 10% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 6% Total Retain 57% 75% Neither 24% 10% Total Not Retain 18% 16% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 35% 49% Recommend retain 16% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 22% 10% Recommend not retain 8% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 11% 2% Total Retain 51% 73% Neither 22% 10% Total Not Retain 16% 15% Don't Know 11% 2% * Includes only the Supreme Court justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 3 ## Page 7 Justice Brian D. Boatright Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Grades 3.21 Overall average grade 3.29 3.37 Question 2 average grade 3.46 3.06 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.20 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.61 answer questions. 3.39 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.39 economic status. 3.52 3.55 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.37 3.86 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.85 2.74 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.40 3.04 Question 3 average grade 3.13 3.00 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.18 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.93 basis of the Court's decision. 3.11 3.31 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.33 3.21 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.18 2.80 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.87 3.00 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.08 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Boatright All SC Judges Excluding Justice Boatright* * Includes only the Supreme Court Justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 8 Justice Brian D. Boatright Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices How strongly do you recommend that Justice Boatright be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 39% Strongly recommend retain 50% 18% Somewhat recommend retain 25% Excluding DK Respondents All SC Judges 24% Neither retain nor not retain Justice Except Justice 10% Boatright Boatright* 9% Total Retain 57% 75% Somewhat recommend not retain 10% Neither 24% 10% Total Not Retain 18% 16% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 35% Strongly recommend retain 49% 16% Somewhat recommend retain 24% 22% Neither retain nor not retain 10% Including DK Respondents All SC Judges 8% Justice Except Justice Somewhat recommend not retain Boatright Boatright* 9% Total Retain 51% 73% Neither 22% 10% 8% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 16% 15% 6% Total DK 11% 2% Don't know enough to make a 11% recommendation 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Boatright All SC Judges Excluding Justice Boatright* * Includes only the Supreme Court Justices 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/Justices a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the justices who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges and justices 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 and justice by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges and justices 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 Supreme Court justice as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for ten years. After ten 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 Supreme Court Justices 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 column on the far right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all Supreme Court Justices (excluding the report-justice) 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 Supreme Court justices 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-justice and the second column displays the percentages for all Supreme Court justices (excluding the report-justice). 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 Supreme Court Justices section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice 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 justice 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 26.2% for Justice Boatright and 26.1% for all Supreme Court justices. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2012 results, the cooperation rate for Justice Boatright is 26.2% and the cooperation rate for all Supreme Court justices is 34.0%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Supreme Court justices and the cooperation rate for Justice Boatright. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable/Not Evaluations Rate Applicable Justice Boatright 177 104 36 37 26.2% All SC Justices* 1473 1003 116 354 26.1% * Includes only the Supreme Court justices evaluated during this interim cycle. 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices All Supreme Court Justices* Average Sample Size = 354 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. 56% 18% 12% 4% 6% 4% 3.18 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 59% 22% 8% 4% 1% 6% 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 63% 12% 6% 1% 3% 14% 3.50 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 59% 22% 10% 3% 2% 5% 3.39 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 57% 5% 1% 0% 1% 36% 3.85 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 53% 18% 10% 3% 3% 13% 3.34 Question 2 Average Grade 3.45 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 53% 23% 14% 6% 4% 1% 3.17 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 50% 25% 12% 7% 5% 1% 3.10 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 21% 14% 3% 1% 12% 3.33 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 53% 17% 10% 6% 5% 10% 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 48% 17% 18% 6% 10% 0% 2.86 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 44% 22% 14% 4% 5% 11% 3.08 Question 3 Average Grade 3.12 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 * Includes only the Supreme Court justices 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 Supreme Court Justices All Supreme Court Justices* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Justice be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 47% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% Recommend not retain 9% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 70% Neither 14% Total Not Retain 16% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 45% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 9% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 4% Total Retain 67% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 15% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the Supreme Court justices 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 - 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BBrriiaann DD.. BBooaattrriigghhtt 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme Court ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Brian D. Boatright Colorado Supreme Court 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Justice Boatright: 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 two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases heard before the Supreme Court in which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent; and 2) district judges and appellate judges. It’s important to note that Supreme Court non- attorney employees were also asked to evaluate you (using the non-attorney survey), but the results are not included in this report due to the very low number of completed surveys. 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 district judges and appellate judges in both tabular and graphical form, and any comments the judges might have made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district/appellate judge questionnaire is 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. ## Page 3 Hon. Brian D. Boatright March 26, 2014 Page 2 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 enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 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. Attorneys assigned Justice Brian D. Boatright an overall average grade of 3.31, and the district judges and appellate judges assigned Justice Boatright an overall average grade of 3.76, resulting in a combined average grade of 3.54. Justice Boatright Average Grades Attorneys District and Combined (All Years) Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.54 3.31 3.76 Sample Size - 64 117 Table 1 The attorney results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Justice Boatright's overall average grades from attorneys for each year in which survey results are available. Provisional justices will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Average Attorney Grades by Year Justice Boatright Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 NA NA 2006 NA NA 2007 NA NA 2008 NA NA 2009 NA NA 2010 NA NA 2011 NA NA 2012 3.21 37 2013 3.44 27 All Years 3.31 64 Table 2 6 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee BBrriiaann DD.. BBooaattrriigghhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6644)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Justice Brian D. Boatright Sample Size = 64 Justice Boatright A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 49% 21% 11% 6% 3% 10% 3.18 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 68% 14% 6% 0% 2% 10% 3.63 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 59% 8% 8% 2% 3% 21% 3.48 status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 70% 17% 5% 0% 0% 8% 3.71 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 59% 5% 0% 0% 0% 37% 3.93 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 38% 13% 14% 5% 5% 25% 3.00 Question 2 Average Grade 3.49 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 54% 25% 11% 4% 7% 0% 3.14 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 57% 18% 11% 4% 11% 0% 3.07 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 43% 21% 25% 4% 0% 7% 3.12 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 64% 7% 11% 7% 4% 7% 3.31 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 54% 11% 21% 4% 11% 0% 2.93 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 21% 18% 0% 4% 11% 3.20 Question 3 Average Grade 3.13 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 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 8 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Percentage Justice Brian D. Boatright Justice Boatright How strongly do you recommend that Justice Boatright be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 47% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 19% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 10% Total Retain 66% Neither 19% Total Not Retain 15% 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 8 Justice Brian D. Boatright Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Grades Overall average grade 3.31 Question 2 average grade 3.49 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.18 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.63 answer questions. 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.48 economic status. 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.71 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.93 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.00 Question 3 average grade 3.13 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.14 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.07 basis of the Court's decision. 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.12 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.31 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.93 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.20 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Boatright 10 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 Justice Brian D. Boatright Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Boatright be retained or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 47% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 19% Justice Boatright Total Retain 66% Neither 19% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 15% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 11 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt aanndd AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee BBrriiaann DD.. BBooaattrriigghhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 177)) ## Page 11 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Justice Brian D. Boatright Sample Size = 117 Justice Boatright A B C D Fail DK/NA 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 76% 13% 1% 0% 0% 10% 3.83 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 66% 19% 4% 0% 0% 10% 3.69 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 70% 21% 1% 0% 0% 9% 3.75 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 42% 21% 5% 2% 0% 30% 3.47 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 68% 18% 0% 0% 0% 14% 3.79 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 71% 21% 0% 0% 0% 8% 3.77 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 62% 19% 1% 0% 0% 18% 3.74 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 78% 8% 0% 0% 0% 15% 3.91 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 62% 6% 0% 0% 0% 32% 3.91 Overall Average Grade: 3.76 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 84% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 2% Recommend not retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 0% Total Retain 97% Neither 2% Total Not Retain 1% 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 13 ## Page 12 Justice Brian D. Boatright Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Grades Overall average of 1 through 9 3.76 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.83 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.69 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.75 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.47 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.79 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.77 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.74 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.91 status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.91 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 84% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 2% Justice Boatright Total Retain 97% Recommend not retain 1% Neither 2% Total Not Retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Boatright 14 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 13 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 14 Methodology The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for these two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices sample comes from a list of Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the justices who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges and justices 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 and justice by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges and justices 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 Supreme Court justice as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for ten years. After ten years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 16 ## Page 15 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. 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 “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices 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 column on the far right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. 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 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 Supreme Court Justices section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice 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 justice 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. 17 ## Page 16 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2013, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey- evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 27.1% for Justice Boatright. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2013 results, the cooperation rate for Justice Boatright is 28.4%. A table of Justice Boatright’s cooperation rate is shown below. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2012 through 2013. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Justice Boatright 290 172 54 64 27.1% II District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: One-hundred seventy-one (171) district judges and 27 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the appellate judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions, plus the retention recommendation question (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the nine questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column to the right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. The overall 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. 18 ## Page 17 The following page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form and the percentage distribution to the retention question in bar-graph form. The last part of the District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Supreme Court Justices section lists the comments district and appellate judges wrote about the justice. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the district judge and appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each appellate judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the appellate 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 appellate 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. e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, 198 questionnaires were mailed (171 district judges and 27 appellate judges) and 117 were returned, though not all appellate judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 19 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 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 20 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 ## Page 21 ## Page 22 ## Page 23 ## Page 24
- 2008 cycle
- 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State off Colorado LLogo COOMMISSIOON ON JUUDICIALL PERFORRMANCEE BBBrriiaann DDDD.. BBooaaaattrriigghhtttt 22008 Juudicial PPerformmance Suurvey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Brian D. Boatright Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, CO. 80401 Dear Judge Boatright: 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 Brian D. BBoatright 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 3399)) ## Page 5 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 33..77 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.7 Q1. Overall Case 33.44 Management 3.4 3.6 Q2. Overall App & 3.4 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.7 3.8 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAvveerraaggee GGrraaddee Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 6 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Case Management 3.7 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.9 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 33.88 1b. Beginning court on time 3.6 3.5 3.6 1c. Allotting appropriate amount 3.4 of time for cases 3.4 3.8 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.5 3.1 1e. [Civil only] Assisting parties to 3.0 reach agreement 3.0 3.7 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 3.5 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 7 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.6 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.4 LLaaww 3.3 3.5 2a. Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 and arguments 3.3 3.8 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 3.2 2d. Willing to reconsider error in 3.0 ffaacctt oorr llaaww 2.9 3.6 2e. Having knowledge of relevant 3.4 substantive law 3.3 3.6 2f. Having knowledge of rules of 3.5 pprroocceedduurree aanndd eevviiddeennccee 3.4 3.6 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the 3.3 circumstances are similar 3.3 3.5 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.4 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 8 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.7 33.99 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.7 3.9 3b. Making sure all participants 3.6 understand the proceedings 3.6 3.8 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 3.6 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 9 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Demeanor 3.8 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.9 4a. Giving proceedings a sense 3.5 of dignity 3.5 3.9 4b. Treating everyone involved 3.4 politely 33.44 3.8 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.9 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 3.7 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 33.77 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.4 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.4 3.7 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.6 44ii. CCoonnssiisstteennttllyy aappppllyyiinngg llaawwss 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.6 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.7 communications 3.7 3.7 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 10 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 3.6 55aa. MMaakkiinngg ttoouugghh ddeecciissiioonnss wwhheenn 3.4 necessary 3.4 3.5 5b. Using good judgment in apppplication of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.6 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared 3.4 for [[his/her]] cases 3.4 3.7 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 complicated and time consuming 33.55 3.7 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 11 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Boatright is toward the defense or prosecution? Brian D. Boatrigght 0.6 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 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Boatright's sentences? Brian D. Boatright 0.3 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 Brian D. Boatright AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Retention Recommendation 110000%% 92% 92% 90% 80% 77%77% 7744%%7744%% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 13% 13%13% 12% 10% 6%6% 6%6% 5% 5% 4%4% 4%4% 4%4% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 14 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 78% 59% 57% B 11% 17% 18% C 0% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 11% 19% 21% Average 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 15 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 66% 62% B 18% 23% 25% C 0% 5% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 3% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 16 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 69% 55% 56% B 21% 27% 28% C 5% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 3% 5% 4% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 17 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 58% 58% B 23% 27% 28% C 0% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 18 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 28% 23% 23% B 28% 17% 17% C 10% 10% 8% D 0% 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 31% 44% 47% Average 3.1 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 19 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 64% 66% B 23% 22% 22% C 3% 8% 7% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 20 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 59% 45% 44% B 18% 23% 21% C 0% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 1% No Grade 21% 19% 24% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 21 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 48% 48% B 16% 17% 16% C 3% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 14% 27% 29% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 22 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 53% 54% B 23% 26% 26% C 5% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 7% 8% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 23 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 54% 54% B 21% 25% 25% C 3% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 24 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 85% 57% 56% B 13% 25% 25% C 3% 9% 9% D 0% 3% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 25 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 31% 32% 27% B 24% 18% 16% C 7% 7% 6% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 38% 38% 47% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 26 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 37% 27% 27% B 18% 18% 18% C 8% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 5% Fail 5% 4% 4% No Grade 32% 37% 38% Average 3.2 3.0 2.9 Letter Grade B B B- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 27 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 72% 55% 54% B 23% 28% 28% C 0% 9% 9% D 0% 3% 4% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 3% 4% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 28 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 63% 60% B 15% 23% 24% C 0% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 4% Average 3.6 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 29 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 58% 58% B 21% 24% 24% C 3% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 4% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 30 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 28% 36% B 13% 16% 18% C 4% 5% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 1% No Grade 38% 48% 37% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 31 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 54% 54% B 19% 20% 20% C 3% 7% 7% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 5% 2% 3% No Grade 5% 15% 14% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 32 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 62% 55% 55% B 22% 19% 20% C 5% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 17% 16% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 33 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 75% 76% B 13% 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 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 71% 71% B 13% 20% 21% C 0% 5% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 35 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Using understandable language?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 85% 75% 76% B 15% 20% 19% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 36 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 3d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 56% 46% 46% B 16% 21% 21% C 3% 7% 7% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 22% 20% 21% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23 ## Page 37 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 90% 69% 69% B 8% 19% 20% C 3% 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 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 90% 68% 69% B 8% 16% 17% C 3% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25 ## Page 39 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 55% 55% B 5% 22% 22% C 5% 10% 10% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 5% 4% Average 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26 ## Page 40 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 67% 68% B 13% 17% 18% C 0% 8% 7% D 0% 4% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27 ## Page 41 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 65% 64% B 15% 19% 20% C 3% 8% 8% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 28 ## Page 42 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 64% 64% B 13% 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 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 65% 64% B 16% 18% 20% C 3% 7% 7% D 3% 3% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 3% 2% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30 ## Page 44 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 84% 70% 70% B 11% 18% 19% C 0% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31 ## Page 45 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 59% 59% B 13% 21% 21% C 0% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 6% 6% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32 ## Page 46 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 67% 64% B 8% 10% 12% C 3% 2% 3% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 14% 19% 19% Average 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33 ## Page 47 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 64% 47% 51% B 17% 9% 11% C 3% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 17% 40% 33% Average 3.7 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34 ## Page 48 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 55% 53% B 23% 21% 22% C 0% 7% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 5% 12% 13% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35 ## Page 49 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 69% 53% 54% B 26% 26% 26% C 0% 10% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36 ## Page 50 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 72% 58% 56% B 23% 24% 24% C 3% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 6% 9% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37 ## Page 51 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 56% 54% B 18% 18% 18% C 0% 5% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 5% 17% 19% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38 ## Page 52 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 40% 39% B 16% 13% 14% C 5% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 24% 40% 40% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39 ## Page 53 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Boatright is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 3% ⇑ 4 8% 3% 4% 3 8% 6% 7% 2 0% 9% 10% 1 8% 13% 14% 0 Neutral 77% 54% 53% -1 0% 6% 4% -2 0% 3% 2% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 0% Average 0.6 0.4 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40 ## Page 54 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Boatright are? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 3% 3% 3 8% 4% 4% 2 8% 7% 8% 1 8% 8% 10% 0 Appropriate 69% 56% 60% -1 0% 5% 4% -2 8% 5% 3% -3 0% 5% 3% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 2% 1% Average 0.3 0.1 0.3 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 41 ## Page 55 Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Boatright be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 92% 77% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 3% 13% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 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 Brian D. Boatright Appellate Survey Overall Performance of Judge Boatright Judge All District Boatright Judges A 50% 28% B 35% 14% C 0% 3% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 15% 55% Average 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 58 NNoonn--AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 114433)) ## Page 59 Brian D. Boatright NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.8 Overall Average 3.6 3.6 3.8 QQ11. OOvveerraallll DDeemmeeaannoorr 33.66 3.6 3.8 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.6 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.7 3.8 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.6 3.6 3.7 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 60 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.8 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.6 3.6 33.99 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.7 sense of dignity 3.6 3.9 1b. Treating participants politely 3.7 and with respect 3.6 3.8 1c. Conducting [his/her] 3.6 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.6 3.8 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 61 Brian D. Boatright NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Fairness 3.8 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.6 3.8 2a. Giving participants an 3.7 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.8 2b. Treating those involved with 3.6 the case without bias 3.5 3.9 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.6 represent themselves 3.5 3.8 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 62 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.7 3.8 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.7 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.8 3b. Using language that 3.7 everyone can understand 3.7 3.8 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 63 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.8 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.6 3.6 3.7 44a. BBegiinniing courtt on ttiime 33.55 3.4 3.9 4b. Maintaining appropriate 33..77 conttroll over proceeddiings 3.7 3.8 4c. Setting reasonable 3.6 sscchheedduulleess ffoorr ccaasseess 3.6 3.8 4d. Being prepared for [his/her] 3.7 cases 3.6 3.8 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 64 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.6 3.5 3.7 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 3.8 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.6 outside pressure 3.5 3.8 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 Brian D. Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 65 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Boatright is toward the defense or prosecution? Brian D. Boatright 0.1 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 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Boatright's sentences? Brian D. Boatrigght -0.2 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 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 9955%% 9955%% 90% 87% 85% 81% 80% 78% 70% 60% 5500%% 40% 30% 20% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7%7% 7% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2%2% 2% 2% 2%2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Boatright All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 68 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 76% 73% B 9% 16% 18% C 2% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 69 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 90% 79% 76% B 6% 13% 14% C 3% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 2% Fail 0% 2% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 70 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 77% 74% B 5% 13% 14% C 1% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 71 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 91% 71% 69% B 3% 17% 17% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 4% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 72 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 77% 75% B 9% 14% 14% C 1% 4% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 73 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 88% 75% 73% B 8% 14% 14% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 4% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 74 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 49% 47% 49% B 3% 8% 9% C 2% 2% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 2% 3% No Grade 46% 39% 35% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 75 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 75% 72% B 8% 14% 14% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 1% 5% 5% Average 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 76 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 88% 78% 76% B 8% 13% 14% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 77 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 85% 78% 76% B 9% 16% 16% C 4% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 78 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 79% 78% B 7% 14% 14% C 2% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 79 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 61% 61% B 16% 24% 24% C 2% 7% 8% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.7 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 80 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 88% 78% 77% B 8% 15% 15% C 4% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 81 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 64% 62% B 6% 17% 17% C 1% 5% 5% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 12% 13% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 82 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 84% 73% 71% B 7% 14% 14% C 1% 3% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 7% 8% Average 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 83 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 86% 67% 66% B 6% 21% 20% C 4% 6% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 84 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 80% 67% 65% B 12% 16% 16% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 3% No Grade 3% 9% 9% Average 3.7 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 85 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 61% 59% B 6% 11% 12% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 21% 20% 20% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 86 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 68% 66% B 11% 13% 14% C 1% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 2% 3% 4% No Grade 7% 10% 10% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 87 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Boatright is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 1% 2% ⇑ 4 2% 1% 1% 3 0% 2% 2% 2 1% 2% 2% 1 6% 4% 5% 0 Neutral 90% 84% 82% -1 0% 2% 3% -2 1% 2% 1% -3 1% 1% 1% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 1% Average 0.1 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 88 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Boatright are? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 1% 1% 2% 3 1% 2% 2% 2 0% 2% 2% 1 0% 3% 3% 0 Appropriate 86% 78% 76% -1 7% 5% 5% -2 2% 4% 4% -3 2% 2% 2% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 1% 1% 1% Average -0.2 0.0 0.0 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 89 Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Boatright be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2006 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 95% 87% 85% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 2% 7% 8% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 1% 2% 2% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 2% 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 Brian D. Boatright Responses by Type Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 15 5 0 0 10 66.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 20 2 4 0 14 87.5% Other Attorneys Civil 3 0 0 0 3 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 15 5 0 0 10 66.7% Total Attorneys 55 13 4 0 38 25.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 75 48 13 1 13 21.0% Defendant 73 47 19 0 7 13.0% Witness 2 1 1 0 0 0.0% Civil Litigant 52 39 5 0 8 17.0% Non-attorneys, Unknown Role Type 30 12 6 0 12 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 232 147 44 1 40 78.2% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 168 63 2 0 103 62.0% Total Others 194 69 2 0 123 35.9% Grand Total: 481 229 50 1 201 46.6% 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
- 2002 cycle
- 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Brian D. Boatright Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility Court Section 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401-6002 Dear Judge Boatright: 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 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 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 four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Brian D. Boatright 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, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 65% 65% B 9% 20% 21% C 6% 7% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 85% 60% 61% B 12% 22% 22% C 8% 8% D 1% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 43% 48% B 5% 13% 14% C 4% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 42% 37% 29% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 61% 63% B 4% 11% 12% C 1% 3% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 38% 24% 19% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 65% 66% B 9% 12% 14% C 2% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 17% 14% 12% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 64% 66% B 7% 12% 13% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 25% 18% 15% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 64% 65% B 5% 12% 13% C 5% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 21% 15% 13% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 61% 60% B 15% 17% 17% C 3% 8% 8% D 2% 4% 5% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 6% 5% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 47% 51% B 3% 10% 11% C 2% 3% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 51% 38% 31% Average Grade 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Boatright on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 61% 59% B 8% 10% 12% C 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 27% 23% 21% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 42% 37% B 21% 23% 23% C 6% 9% 9% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 28% 21% 27% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 55% 54% B 26% 27% 28% C 6% 9% 9% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 54% 54% B 22% 25% 26% C 1% 9% 9% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 8% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 64% 64% B 9% 20% 21% C 6% 7% D 1% 3% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 82% 57% 57% B 10% 22% 22% C 3% 8% 8% D 1% 4% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 4% 5% 4% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 45% 46% B 33% 27% 27% C 1% 11% 11% D 1% 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 8% 9% 8% Average Grade 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 74% 55% 54% B 20% 28% 28% C 3% 8% 9% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on using court time efficiently? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 54% 54% B 25% 26% 25% C 4% 10% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 7% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 59% 58% B 18% 22% 23% C 3% 7% 7% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 49% 49% B 18% 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 25% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Boatright on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 32% 33% B 10% 13% 13% C 4% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 52% 46% 45% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 57% 53% B 28% 24% 25% C 3% 8% 9% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 49% 49% B 25% 25% 25% C 8% 8% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 16% 11% 13% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 45% 44% B 25% 29% 29% C 11% 11% 12% D 2% 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 9% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.2 3.1 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 51% 50% B 17% 20% 20% C 6% 8% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 20% 16% 15% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Brian D. Boatright Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Boatright be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 94% 85% 84% Do not retain in office 3% 10% 11% No opinion 3% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 68% 67% B 10% 19% 19% C 2% 5% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 44% 47% B 7% 14% 15% C 1% 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 48% 35% 30% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 77% 68% 65% B 3% 14% 14% C 2% 3% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 16% 13% 14% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 70% 67% B 5% 15% 16% C 1% 4% 5% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 8% 9% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 70% 67% B 5% 15% 16% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 10% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 69% 66% B 6% 15% 15% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 81% 68% 65% B 5% 15% 16% C 4% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Boatright on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 40% 43% B 5% 11% 12% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 56% 44% 37% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Boatright on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 79% 66% 63% B 7% 16% 16% C 1% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 11% 9% 11% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 84% 72% 70% B 9% 18% 19% C 2% 5% 6% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 81% 71% 69% B 13% 18% 18% C 1% 5% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 86% 74% 72% B 7% 15% 16% C 2% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 79% 68% 66% B 8% 16% 17% C 1% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 75% 57% 56% B 15% 21% 22% C 3% 8% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on starting court on time? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 59% 57% B 19% 22% 23% C 5% 8% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on being prepared for cases? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 75% 66% 64% B 11% 17% 18% C 3% 5% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Boatright on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 77% 63% 62% B 7% 15% 16% C 1% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 4% No Grade 9% 11% 11% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Boatright on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 82% 69% 67% B 5% 14% 16% C 5% 4% 5% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Boatright on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 77% 64% 62% B 7% 17% 18% C 3% 5% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Boatright on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 57% 55% B 5% 13% 14% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 30% 22% 22% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Brian D. Boatright Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Boatright be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Boatright Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 91% 85% 83% Do not retain in office 3% 7% 8% No opinion 5% 8% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. 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: 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 been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores 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 as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. 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 two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Brian D. Boatright Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 12 11 1 91.7% Attorney For Defendant 93 51 24 5 13 68.0% Attorney for Plaintiff 73 37 31 2 3 54.4% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 178 99 56 7 16 63.9% Law Enforcement Social Services Caseworker Employee 7 4 2 1 66.7% Defendant 119 16 54 46 3 22.9% Plaintiff 45 15 19 7 4 44.1% Juror 168 107 47 8 6 69.5% Victim 16 2 7 1 6 22.2% Other 59 7 35 15 2 16.7% Sub Total: 414 151 164 78 21 47.9% Total: 592 250 220 85 37 53.2% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1
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
- 2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026