John J. Briggs
Trial Court · Weld · Weld
Meets Standards4 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Weld · WeldMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by an 8-0 vote, with two commissioners absent, finds that Judge John J. Briggs MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Commission evaluates judges on 6 standards: integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Evaluation data includes courtroom observations, a personal interview, legal rulings, and participant surveys. The Commission found Judge Briggs to be an exceptionally efficient, knowledgeable, and kind jurist. He maintains high courtroom standards with a confident, approachable demeanor. Strong personal awareness allows him to read between the lines and adapt seamlessly to the uniqueness of each case. Survey results show highly consistent scores across all categories. Judge Briggs genuinely enjoys his work. Originally appointed to the Weld County Court bench in December 2010, Judge Briggs presides over Division 6, managing misdemeanor offenses, traffic violations, bond hearings, and county-level civil cases. His prior legal career includes the Central Research Staff for the Kansas Court of Appeals (1993–1996), 8 years as a Deputy Public Defender across Kansas and Colorado (1996–2004), and private defense practice in Greeley (2004–2010). He earned his law degree from the Washburn University School of Law in 1993. Outside the courtroom, Judge Briggs serves on the Weld Food Bank Board of Directors (previously as President and Vice President), volunteers as a mock trial judge, and participates in the statewide Judicial Peer-to-Peer coaching program. The Commission believes Judge Briggs is a distinct asset to the 19th Judicial District.
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Weld · WeldMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 63.1% yes61,232 yes · 35,769 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable John J. Briggs Meets Performance Standards. Six members of the Commission voted that Judge Briggs met judicial performance standards, with one voting no, and three absent. 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. Judge Briggs presides over a criminal docket that includes a mix of misdemeanor, traffic offenses, and civil cases. He presents a calm demeanor, and effectively manages his docket. An area he has worked on is slowing down his speech to ensure he is understood. Through observation, his speech is at an effective speaking rate that is clear and concise. Judge Briggs is patient and uses language everyone understands while using legal knowledge when explaining his rulings. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluation and interview. The surveys were completed by forty-six attorneys and twenty-nine non-attorneys who responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Briggs. The Commission reviewed the survey responses. Overall, Judge Briggs has a rating of 3.3, below the 3.4 average of all County Court Judges (the maximum score is 4.0). In response to the question, do you think Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards? 89% of the attorney respondents answered yes, meets performance standards, and 11% answered no, does not meet performance standards. 67% of the non-attorney respondents answered yes, meets performance standards, and 33% answered no, does not meet performance standards. In the other categories he rated as high in communications, he rated average or just lower than average in case management, diligence, application of knowledge, demeanor, and rated lower than average in fairness. In the fairness category, non-attorneys rated Judge Briggs 2.2 when treating people fairly who represent themselves. When asked whether Judge Briggs is fair and impartial to both sides, attorneys rated him 3.2. One of Judge Briggs's strengths is communication; it is just as important that attorneys and non-attorneys feel treated fairly and without bias, even when a person is representing themselves in court. The Commission looks forward to Judge Briggs being cautious of this.
- 2018 retention cycleTrial Court · Weld · WeldMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 70.7% yes69,065 yes · 28,640 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Nineteenth Judicial District Commissioners on Judicial Performance recommends by a unanimous vote (10-0) that Judge John Joseph Briggs MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Briggs was appointed to the Nineteenth Judicial District as County Judge on January 21, 2011 and was sworn in on January 24, 2011. Upon graduation from Washburn University School of Law in 1993, he worked for the Kansas Court of Appeals until 1996. He has worked as a Public Defender in both Kansas and Colorado for six years and subsequently practiced in a private law office until 2010. Judge Briggs is active in the community, serving on the Board of Directors of the Weld Food Bank and related committees, as well as a volunteer judge for the annual high school mock trial competition. The Commission reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Briggs in the courtroom, conducted a personal interview, read and reviewed written opinions he authored, and observed him in court. In response to the question, “Do you think Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards?” 91% of all respondents answered yes; 5% answered no; and 4% had no opinion. There were totals of 88 non-attorney respondents and 24 attorneys responding. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 88% answered yes, Judge Briggs does meet performance standards and 13% answered no. Of the non-attorney respondents, 92% answered yes, 3% answered no, and 5% had no opinion. The bulk of Judge Briggs’ workload involves criminal cases (75%) with the other 25% involving civil cases. Communication skills and demeanor were two areas of strength in the surveys and were also demonstrated as positive skills in the courtroom and in the interview. Non-attorneys rated him higher on demeanor than all other county judges were rated. In another area of high performance, both attorneys and non-attorneys rated Judge Briggs higher in diligence than other county judges were rated. His written cases are clear with his logic and thinking easy to follow. Judge Briggs tries to make sure all in the courtroom understand what the issues are and can follow the proceedings. He makes a special effort to ensure that jurors have a positive experience in the courtroom. He sees the judicial process as a team effort and expresses a strong belief that all who work in the judicial system are treated as equals. Overall, Judge Briggs scored consistently on the survey questions regarding knowledge and application of law, communications, demeanor, diligence, and fairness. For case management, attorneys rated him lower in this area. However, compared to ratings by attorneys regarding case management, Judge Briggs scored only slightly lower than all other county judges. Judge Briggs clearly takes the responsibility of being a judge seriously and tries to make the justice system work for all in the community. Based on these findings the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards.
- 2014 retention cycleTrial Court · Weld · WeldCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 68.4% yes49,813 yes · 23,052 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain 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 Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge John J. Briggs BE RETAINED. Judge Briggs was appointed to the Weld County Court in December 2010. Judge Briggs graduated from Washington University School of Law in 1993, and went to work for the Kansas Court of Appeals, Central Research staff until 1996. He then worked as a Public Defender in the states of Colorado and Nebraska for six years. He entered private practice joining the law offices of Robert Ray LLC., from December 2004 to 2010. Judge Briggs has held the following positions with the Weld Food Bank, President and Vice President. He has volunteered numerous hours in the recovery after the Windsor tornado and recent flooding. He volunteers in his local schools and is a volunteer judge for the high school for the mock trial competition. The Commission conducted a personal interview, observed Judge Briggs in court, and reviewed opinions he had made, as well as reviewed surveys by attorneys and non-attorneys. Judge Brigg’s docket in County Court includes civil and criminal cases. Of attorneys responding to the survey, 77% recommended retention, 15% not to retain and 8% made no recommendation. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 91% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain and 5% made no recommendation. The overall average grade for Judge Briggs by attorneys was above the average grade for all County Court Judges standing for retention (3.53). In the areas of Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communication, and Demeanor, Judge Briggs’ ratings exceeded the average ratings of all county judges who were up for review at this time.
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge John J. Briggs 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Briggs, 52 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 52 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge Briggs All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 82% 80% 79% 80% 71% 60% 40% 25% 18% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 4% 0% Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge Briggs All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Briggs Briggs Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 71% 80% 82% 79% standards No, does not meet 25% 14% 18% 13% performance standards No opinion 4% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.4 Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge All County Briggs Judges Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and 3.3 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 45 21% 64% 29 Non-Attorneys 26 - - 23 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Briggs received 1 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.2 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 37 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.8 50 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 43 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.5 47 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.6 46 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 28 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3 3.3 3 N/A 26 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 29 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 27 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 19 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 17 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.3 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 48 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 23 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 20 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 19 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.2 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 48 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.6 47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.8 48 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 20 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.1 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 29 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 25 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 27 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 17 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 17 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 17 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 10 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 11 ## Page 12 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 17 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Briggs Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 17 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 17 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 15 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 17 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Briggs, 52 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 52 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, 2020. 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, 2021. 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 Judge John J. Briggs 14 ## Page 15 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 Judge John J. Briggs 15 ## Page 16 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 Judge John J. Briggs 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 214 45 0 29 64% Staff 8 0 8 - Others 158 16 0 15 - Total Non-Attorneys - 24 - 23 - Total Respondents - 69 - 52 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 17 - 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Structured scores pending
Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge John J. Briggs 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Briggs, 52 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 52 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge Briggs All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 82% 80% 79% 80% 71% 60% 40% 25% 18% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 4% 0% Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge Briggs All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Briggs Briggs Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 71% 80% 82% 79% standards No, does not meet 25% 14% 18% 13% performance standards No opinion 4% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.4 Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge All County Briggs Judges Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and 3.3 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 45 21% 64% 29 Non-Attorneys 26 - - 23 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Briggs received 1 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.2 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 37 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.8 50 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 43 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.5 47 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.6 46 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 28 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3 3.3 3 N/A 26 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 29 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 27 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 19 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 17 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.3 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 48 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 23 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 20 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 19 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.2 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 48 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.6 47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.8 48 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 20 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.1 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 29 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 25 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 27 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 17 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 17 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 17 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 10 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 11 ## Page 12 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 17 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Briggs Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Briggs County Judges Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 17 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 17 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 15 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 17 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Briggs, 52 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 52 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, 2020. 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, 2021. 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 Judge John J. Briggs 14 ## Page 15 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 Judge John J. Briggs 15 ## Page 16 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 Judge John J. Briggs 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 214 45 0 29 64% Staff 8 0 8 - Others 158 16 0 15 - Total Non-Attorneys - 24 - 23 - Total Respondents - 69 - 52 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 17 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.3judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend89%46 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend67%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge John J. Briggs 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Briggs, 39 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 39 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge Briggs All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 89% 83% 83% 80% 67% 60% 40% 33% 20% 11% 13% 12% 4% 6% 0% Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge Briggs All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Briggs Briggs Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 89% 83% 67% 83% standards No, does not meet 11% 13% 33% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 2.8 Fairness 3.3 Judge Briggs All County Judges Judge All County Briggs Judges Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and 3.2 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 2.8 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 46 17% 46% 21 Non- 29 - - 18 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Briggs received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.9 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 2.9 County Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.5 4 2.8 25 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.1 34 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.0 27 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.5 3.9 2.8 32 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.4 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 2.8 County Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.1 3.3 3.5 2.6 33 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 19 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 15 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 17 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.9 3.3 N/A 2.9 14 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 2.9 3.3 N/A 2.9 14 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.8 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.4 County Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.5 3.8 2.9 33 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 12 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 15 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 15 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.7 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 2.9 County Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.3 33 Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.2 33 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.3 3.3 N/A 2.3 15 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Briggs Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.6 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 18 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 16 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 17 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 13 Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 12 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 11 cases Being prepared for cases. 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 11 Managing court proceedings so 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 12 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Briggs Score 2.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Briggs Attorneys 3.2 Judge Briggs Non-Attorneys 2.3 Judge Briggs County Judge Briggs Judge Briggs Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.4 3.4 N/A 2.4 13 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.2 3.3 N/A 2.2 13 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 2.2 3.4 N/A 2.2 10 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 2.8 3.4 N/A 2.8 12 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 2.9 3.3 3.2 2.5 31 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 18 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Briggs, 39 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 39 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 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 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 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 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. 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 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 13 ## Page 14 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 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 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 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 266 46 21 46% Staff - 5 5 - Others 393 24 13 54% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 29 18 - Total Respondents - 75 39 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 16
- 2018 cycle
- 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable John J. Briggs 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge John J. Briggs, 127 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 94 agreed they had worked with Judge Briggs enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 94 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) 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 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.97 4 3.53 3.66 3.53 3.33 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge John J. Briggs Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.53 3.33 3.66 3.97 3.53 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 80% 80% 79% 80% 69% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge John J. Briggs Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 80% 80% 79% 100% 69% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge John J. Briggs Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.44 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.23 3.61 3.90 3.48 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.38 3.67 4.00 3.53 Diligence 3.35 3.74 3.98 3.64 Demeanor 3.27 3.61 3.99 3.46 Fairness N/A 3.66 4.00 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 174 0 50 29% 28% Total Non- 1301 105 77 6% 25% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 132 1 18 14% 6% Other Non- 1169 104 59 5% 31% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Briggs, 50 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 36 agreed they had worked with Judge Briggs enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 36 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. 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 (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 6 ## Page 9 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 attorney. 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 with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 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 exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge John J. Briggs be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge John J. Briggs Total Retain 80% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 15% Figure 3 100% 80% 63% 60% 54% 40% 22% 17% 20% 6% 9% 6% 7% 9% 9% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Briggs All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.39 Case Management Overall Average 3.44 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.26 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.40 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.50 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.69 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 6 Case Management Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Briggs Number of Responses: 36 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 67% 19% -- 3% -- 11% 3.69 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 72% 14% 6% 8% -- -- 3.50 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 64% 17% 8% 8% -- 3% 3.40 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 53% 19% 17% 6% -- 6% 3.26 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.44 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.13 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.23 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.17 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.97 3.19 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.13 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.31 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.47 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 36 Briggs Judges Being able to identify and analyze 69% 17% 8% 3% 3% -- 3.47 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 58% 25% 8% 6% 3% -- 3.31 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 55% 21% 6% 9% 6% 3% 3.13 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 53% 14% 17% 11% 6% -- 2.97 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 54% 26% 9% 6% 6% -- 3.17 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.23 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.38 Communications Overall Average 3.38 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 3.29 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 8 Communications All Judge John J. Briggs Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Briggs Number of Responses: 36 Judges Making sure all participants 69% 19% 3% 3% 6% -- 3.44 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 58% 19% 8% 3% 6% 6% 3.29 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.28 Demeanor Overall Average 3.27 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.19 3.32 Treating participants with respect 3.36 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.25 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 9 Demeanor All Judge John J. Briggs Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Briggs Number of Responses: 36 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 64% 17% 6% 8% 6% -- 3.25 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 75% 8% -- 11% 6% -- 3.36 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 61% 17% 8% 8% 6% -- 3.19 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.27 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.17 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.26 they are complicated and time consuming 3.34 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 3.43 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 3.28 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 10 Diligence Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 36 Briggs Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 61% 17% 14% 6% 3% -- 3.28 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 67% 17% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3.43 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 67% 17% -- 8% 6% 3% 3.34 3.26 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.35 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Briggs in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 52% 48% 40% 30% 27% 20% 11% 9% 8% 9% 3% 2% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Briggs All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge John J. Briggs, 77 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 58 agreed they had worked with Judge Briggs enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 58 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the tab le refer to the number of questions ask ed in each category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 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 exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 16 ## Page 19 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Briggs be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge John J. Briggs Total Retain 79% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 8% Figure 10 100% 80% 71% 64% 60% 40% 17% 20% 13% 8% 7% 9% 4% 3% 4% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Briggs All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.61 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.35 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.63 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.60 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 12 Demeanor Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 57 Briggs Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 84% 7% 5% 2% 2% -- 3.70 3.47 Treating participants with respect 84% 5% 4% -- 7% -- 3.60 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 82% 7% 4% 2% 5% -- 3.60 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 86% 5% 2% -- 7% -- 3.63 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.61 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.66 3.47 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.71 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.52 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.60 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.77 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 13 Fairness Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Briggs Number of Responses: 57 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 86% 9% 2% 4% -- -- 3.77 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 82% 5% 7% -- 5% -- 3.60 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 60% 4% 4% 4% 4% 26% 3.52 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 82% 9% -- 2% 4% 4% 3.71 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.66 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.60 Communications Overall Average 3.67 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.71 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.71 Making sure all participants understand the 3.54 proceedings 3.56 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 14 Communications Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 57 Briggs Judges Making sure all participants 82% 7% 2% 2% 7% -- 3.56 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 80% 13% -- 5% -- 2% 3.71 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 82% 13% 2% 2% 2% -- 3.71 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.67 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.74 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.45 wasted time 3.77 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.70 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.82 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.75 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 15 Diligence Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 57 Briggs Judges Beginning court on time 77% 16% 4% 4% -- -- 3.67 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 81% 11% 2% 4% -- 4% 3.75 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 86% 11% 4% -- -- -- 3.82 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 75% 5% 2% 4% 2% 12% 3.70 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 84% 7% 5% 2% -- 2% 3.77 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.74 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.36 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.61 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.61 3.41 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.84 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Briggs Table 16 Application of Law Judge John J. Briggs All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Briggs Number of Responses: 57 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 68% 14% 5% 2% 4% 7% 3.53 3.37 Willing to make decision without 72% 4% 2% 2% -- 21% 3.84 3.41 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 81% 7% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3.61 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.61 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Briggs is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Briggs is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 81% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 4% 7% 4% 7% 5% 6% 7% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Briggs All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Briggs are. If you feel Judge Briggs generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 80% 74% 72% 60% 40% 20% 11% 4% 6% 8% 8% 8% 4% 6% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Briggs All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 25 - 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score—judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend91%respondent count not on recordNon-attorneys recommend92%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable John J. Briggs 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge John J. Briggs, 112 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 78 agreed they had worked with Judge Briggs enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 78 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.73 3.65 3.57 3.54 3.30 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge John J. Briggs Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.57 3.30 3.65 3.73 3.54 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 96% 91% 92% 88% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 13% 5% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge John J. Briggs Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 91% 88% 92% 96% 83% standards No, does not meet performance 5% 13% 3% 4% 4% standards No opinion 4% 0% 5% 0% 13% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge John J. Briggs Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.34 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.24 3.61 3.72 3.42 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.41 3.68 3.72 3.62 Diligence 3.27 3.67 3.76 3.67 Demeanor 3.23 3.65 3.73 3.52 Fairness N/A 3.63 3.74 3.47 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 110 0 24 22% 29% Total Non- 1540 347 88 7% 31% Attorneys Staff 83 0 31 37% 55% Jurors 90 4 24 28% 4% Other Non- 1367 343 33 3% 27% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Briggs, 24 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 17 agreed they had worked with Judge Briggs enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 17 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.38 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.25 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.5 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.25 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge John J. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Briggs Promptly issuing a decision on the 11 2 1 2 -- -- 16 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 9 3 3 1 -- -- 16 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 12 1 2 1 -- -- 16 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 11 -- 3 2 -- -- 16 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.24 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.5 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3.19 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.19 are similar 3.15 3.06 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 3.25 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 11 3 1 1 -- -- 16 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 9 4 1 1 1 -- 16 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 11 2 -- 1 2 -- 16 similar Being fair and impartial to both 9 2 3 1 1 -- 16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 11 2 -- 2 1 -- 16 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.41 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.31 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.5 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 10 3 1 2 -- -- 16 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 12 1 2 1 -- -- 16 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.23 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.31 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.19 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3.19 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 11 1 2 2 -- -- 16 dignity Treating participants with respect 11 -- 3 1 1 -- 16 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 9 4 1 1 1 -- 16 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Briggs on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.44 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.31 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.06 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 12 2 -- 1 1 -- 16 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 11 2 1 1 1 -- 16 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 10 1 2 2 1 -- 16 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge John J. Briggs Yes, meets performance 88% standards No, does not meet 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge John J. Briggs, 88 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 61 agreed they had worked with Judge Briggs enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 61 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.65 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.72 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.78 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.65 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 47 8 2 -- 1 3 61 Treating participants with respect 48 6 2 1 2 2 61 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 49 7 1 -- 1 3 61 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 43 12 -- -- 2 4 61 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.63 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.61 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.63 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.5 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.74 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 47 7 1 2 2 2 61 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 47 8 1 -- 3 2 61 case without bias Treating fairly people who 29 7 1 1 2 20 60 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 44 8 1 -- 1 7 61 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.58 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.8 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.67 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 42 13 1 2 1 2 61 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 51 6 1 -- 1 2 61 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 45 9 2 2 -- 3 61 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.67 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.71 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.77 for cases 3.64 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.62 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.68 wasted time 3.55 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 46 9 1 2 -- 2 60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 48 7 1 -- 1 3 60 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 47 8 -- 3 -- 2 60 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 41 8 1 2 1 7 60 Managing court proceedings so that there is 46 8 -- 2 1 3 60 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.61 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.57 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.73 outside pressure 3.55 3.64 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Briggs All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge John J. Briggs A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 42 10 1 -- 3 4 60 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 42 6 2 -- 1 9 60 pressure Being able to identify and 46 8 1 1 2 2 60 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge John J. Briggs Yes, meets performance 92% standards No, does not meet 3% performance standards No opinion 5% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John J. Briggs 22
- 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 JJoohhnn JJ.. BBrriiggggss 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable John J. Briggs Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Briggs: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. John J. Briggs May 28, 2013 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 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. On average, Judge John J. Briggs received an overall combined average grade of 3.57 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.45, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.69, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Briggs Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.57 3.45 3.69 Sample Size - 39 118 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Briggs’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Briggs Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 2010 2012 3.57 3.45 39 3.69 118 Overall 3.57 3.45 39 3.69 118 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Briggs’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Briggs Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Briggs Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.92 63 53% 3.43 55 47% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn JJ.. BBrriigss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3399)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Sample Size = 39 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 51% 15% 5% 0% 3% 26% 3.52 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 72% 15% 8% 3% 3% 0% 3.51 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 21% 5% 5% 5% 15% 3.21 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 28% 15% 3% 0% 3% 3.32 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.39 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 69% 18% 8% 3% 3% 0% 3.49 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 64% 15% 8% 8% 3% 3% 3.34 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 51% 13% 3% 10% 5% 18% 3.16 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 19% 16% 3% 3% 9% 3.21 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.30 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 85% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.77 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 62% 15% 8% 0% 3% 13% 3.53 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.65 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 82% 8% 8% 3% 0% 0% 3.69 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 72% 21% 3% 3% 3% 0% 3.56 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 62% 21% 5% 10% 3% 0% 3.28 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 59% 23% 10% 3% 3% 3% 3.37 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 54% 28% 3% 8% 3% 5% 3.30 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 72% 13% 5% 5% 0% 5% 3.59 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 67% 13% 5% 0% 0% 15% 3.73 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.45 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 16% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 25% Completely neutral 63% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 3% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 51% 56% Recommend retain 26% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 77% 79% Neither 13% 9% Total Not Retain 11% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 51% 56% Recommend retain 26% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 77% 78% Neither 13% 9% Total Not Retain 11% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.45 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.39 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.52 case after trial. 3.50 3.51 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.21 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.32 3.37 3.30 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 3.49 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 3.34 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 3.21 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.65 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.77 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge John J. Briggs 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.48 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.69 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 3.56 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.28 neutral manner. 3.24 3.37 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.54 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.30 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.59 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.73 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 16% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 63% Completely Neutral 51% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 3% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Briggs be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 51% Strongly recommend retain 56% 26% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 13% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Briggs Judges* Total Retain 77% 79% 8% Recommend not retain Neither 13% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 11% 13% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 51% Strongly recommend retain 56% 26% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 13% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Briggs Judges* 8% Recommend not retain Total Retain 77% 78% 5% Neither 13% 9% 3% Total Not Retain 11% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn JJ.. BBrriigss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 188)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Sample Size = 118 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 18% 6% 0% 3% 0% 3.60 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 79% 14% 3% 1% 3% 0% 3.67 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 77% 12% 6% 3% 3% 0% 3.58 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 8% 1% 4% 1% 3.47 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.58 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 12% 3% 1% 3% 0% 3.67 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 3% 2% 4% 1% 3.60 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 59% 11% 1% 0% 3% 26% 3.69 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 81% 10% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3.72 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.67 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 85% 9% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3.74 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3.68 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 87% 8% 2% 0% 3% 0% 3.78 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.73 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 79% 15% 3% 0% 2% 1% 3.72 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 87% 9% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3.82 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 75% 10% 1% 0% 3% 12% 3.75 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 86% 8% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3.81 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 77% 13% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.75 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 83% 8% 3% 0% 2% 4% 3.78 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 74% 6% 2% 3% 2% 14% 3.72 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 79% 9% 1% 1% 3% 7% 3.71 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.74 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% 13% Competely neutral 82% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.05 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 12% Competely neutral 86% 76% Lenient sentencing total 6% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.14 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 70% 67% Recommend retain 19% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% 6% Recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 89% 85% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 65% 64% Recommend retain 18% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 5% 6% Recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 7% 5% Total Retain 83% 81% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% Don't Know 7% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.69 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.58 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.60 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.67 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.58 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.47 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.67 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.67 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.60 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.72 or her case. 3.58 3.73 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.74 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.68 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.78 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge John J. Briggs 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.75 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.72 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.82 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.75 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.81 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.64 little wasted time. 3.49 3.74 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.78 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.72 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.71 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.05 John J. Briggs 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.14 John J. Briggs 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Briggs be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 70% Strongly recommend retain 67% 19% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 6% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Briggs Judges* 2% Recommend not retain Total Retain 89% 85% 3% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 65% Strongly recommend retain 64% 18% Recommend retain 17% 5% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 2% Judge Briggs Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 83% 81% Neither 5% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 6% 9% 6% Total DK 7% 5% Don't know enough to make a 7% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or 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 County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or 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. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Briggs is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge John J. Briggs Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 19 10 1 0 8 44.4% Defense Attorneys 67 39 5 0 23 37.1% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 21 8 5 0 8 50.0% Total Attorneys 107 57 11 0 39 40.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 114 67 19 8 20 21.1% Defendant 250 141 85 0 24 14.5% Civil Litigant 179 104 58 6 11 9.1% Jurors 146 72 9 2 63 46.0% Total Non-attorneys 689 384 171 16 118 22.8% Grand Total: 796 441 182 16 157 25.6% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoohhnn JJ.. BBrriiggggss 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable John J. Briggs Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Briggs: 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 in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The 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. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge John J. Briggs received an overall combined average grade of 3.53 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.34, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.72, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Briggs Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.53 3.34 3.72 Sample Size - 81 247 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Briggs’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Briggs Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.57 3.45 39 3.69 118 2013 3.49 3.22 42 3.75 129 Overall 3.53 3.34 81 3.72 247 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Briggs’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Briggs Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.91 142 57% 3.47 105 43% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn JJ.. BBrriigss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 8811)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Sample Size = 81 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 0% 1% 25% 3.54 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 20% 8% 8% 1% 0% 3.36 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 25% 8% 5% 3% 12% 3.24 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 25% 17% 3% 3% 1% 3.21 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.34 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 62% 22% 8% 7% 1% 0% 3.37 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 58% 18% 5% 9% 5% 4% 3.19 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 47% 16% 3% 9% 8% 17% 3.03 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 13% 3% 5% 8% 3.17 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.19 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 75% 17% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 57% 22% 7% 3% 1% 11% 3.46 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.57 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 76% 13% 5% 4% 1% 0% 3.59 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 70% 17% 7% 3% 4% 0% 3.46 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 55% 20% 9% 8% 8% 0% 3.07 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 26% 8% 5% 4% 3% 3.24 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 28% 3% 9% 5% 3% 3.16 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 63% 22% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3.45 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 61% 18% 9% 1% 1% 9% 3.49 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.37 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.34 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 14% 25% Completely neutral 55% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 11% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 8% 2% Don't know or not sure 2% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 51% 55% Recommend retain 26% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 7% Total Retain 77% 78% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 15% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.34 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.34 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.54 case after trial. 3.50 3.36 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.24 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.21 3.37 3.19 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.37 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.19 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.03 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 3.17 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.57 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.67 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.46 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge John J. Briggs 55 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.34 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.59 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.07 neutral manner. 3.20 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.37 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.16 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.45 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.49 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 11% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 14% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 55% Completely Neutral 51% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 66 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Briggs be retained or not retained in office? 51% Strongly recommend retain 55% 26% Recommend retain 23% 8% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Briggs Judges* Total Retain 77% 78% 8% Neither 8% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 15% 13% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 77 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn JJ.. BBrriigss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 224477)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Sample Size = 247 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 20% 4% 0% 2% 0% 3.66 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 13% 2% 1% 2% 0% 3.73 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 80% 14% 3% 2% 2% 0% 3.68 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 16% 6% 0% 2% 0% 3.61 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.67 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 82% 13% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3.71 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 81% 12% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3.69 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 59% 12% 2% 0% 2% 26% 3.69 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 11% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.75 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.71 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 83% 12% 3% 0% 2% 0% 3.75 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 15% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3.75 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 86% 10% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3.79 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 75% 18% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3.68 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 86% 11% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3.82 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 73% 12% 2% 0% 2% 11% 3.74 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 83% 12% 1% 0% 1% 3% 3.80 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 18% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.74 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 79% 12% 2% 0% 1% 4% 3.76 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 10% 1% 1% 1% 16% 3.75 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 76% 13% 1% 1% 2% 7% 3.72 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.74 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.72 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 193 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge John J. Briggs John J. Briggs All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 6% 11% Competely neutral 84% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.04 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 10% Competely neutral 83% 76% Lenient sentencing total 11% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.03 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% 68% Recommend retain 21% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 6% Recommend not retain 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 91% 86% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1140 ## Page 14 Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.72 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.67 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.66 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.73 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.68 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.61 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.71 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.71 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.69 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.75 or her case. 3.60 3.76 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.75 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.75 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.79 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge John J. Briggs 1151 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.74 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.68 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.82 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.74 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.80 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.64 little wasted time. 3.51 3.74 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.76 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.75 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.72 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.04 John J. Briggs 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.03 John J. Briggs -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 1162 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge John J. Briggs Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Briggs be retained or not retained in office? 70% Strongly recommend retain 68% 21% Recommend retain 18% 5% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Briggs Judges* 1% Total Retain 91% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John J. Briggs All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 1173 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 2195 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. 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 County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 3106 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 3117 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 3128 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Briggs is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 3139 ## Page 23 Judge John J. Briggs Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 48 24 7 0 17 41.5% Defense Attorneys 145 65 26 0 54 45.4% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 27 11 6 0 10 47.6% Total Attorneys 220 100 39 0 81 44.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 186 106 40 10 30 20.5% Law Enforcement 50 24 12 0 14 36.8% Defendant 395 225 139 1 30 11.7% Civil Litigant 308 187 87 9 25 11.3% Witness 3 1 2 0 0 0.0% Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 291 133 12 4 142 50.9% Employees, including Interpreters 17 7 4 0 6 46.2% Total Non-attorneys 1251 684 296 24 247 25.9% Grand Total: 1471 784 335 24 328 28.9% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3240 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
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
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026