← All judges

Carroll Michelle Brinegar

Trial Court · Jackson · Jackson

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2022 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jackson · Jackson
    Meets Standards
    Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Eighth Judicial District Judicial Performance Commission votes 9-0 that Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.  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 Brinegar presides over civil cases, dependency and neglect cases, and the adult drug court program.  Judge Brinegar enjoys being a judicial officer and is well-respected by the community. In survey comments, Judge Brinegar was noted as a kind and respectful judicial officer who makes sure every person in her courtroom is heard.  Based on comments received during a previous evaluation, Judge Brinegar set the goal of issuing written orders in a more timely manner.  Based on comments received in this evaluation cycle, it appears that she has made significant progress toward this goal, which she intends to maintain.  The Commission also recognizes that over the past several years, Judge Brinegar has taken on the role of a mentor to several of the newer judicial officers. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Brinegar, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared in Judge Brinegar’s courtroom.  The Commission also met with representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Public Defender.  A total of fifty-three individuals, twenty-seven attorneys and twenty-six non-attorneys, believed they had sufficient knowledge to express their opinion of Judge Brinegar.  When asked whether Judge Brinegar meets performance standards: Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 100% answered yes.  Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 83% answered yes and 17% had no opinion. Judge Brinegar received particularly high ratings in the areas of communication, diligence, and demeanor.
  • 2016 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jackson · Jackson
    Meets Standards
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Caroll Michelle Brinegar BE RETAINED. Judge Brinegar was appointed to the Larimer District Court in December of 2013.  As a District Court Judge, she presides over criminal, civil, domestic relations, mental health, and juvenile delinquency cases.  Prior to being appointed to the bench, she served in the Larimer County District Attorney’s Office.  Judge Brinegar received her undergraduate degree from Colorado State University and her law degree from the University of Denver College of Law. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Brinegar, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Brinegar.  The survey asked “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinegar to be retained in office?”  Of the attorneys and non-attorneys completing the survey, 92% of the combined groups recommended retention.  Of the attorneys responding, 84% recommended retention, 4% recommended non-retention, and 12% made no recommendation.  Of the non-attorneys responding, 97% recommended retention, 3% recommended non-retention, and 0% made no recommendation.  A total of 26 attorneys and 33 non-attorneys completed the judicial performance survey regarding Judge Brinegar. Judge Brinegar received high marks with respect to her demeanor.  Judge Brinegar is often described as calm, fair, and respectful.  She speaks clearly and provides patient clarification to defendants and other non-attorneys who appear in her courtroom.  Because she came from a criminal law background, Judge Brinegar admittedly struggled with civil docket initially, but she worked to expand her knowledge in this area of the law using other judges and training opportunities as resources.  In addition, as a former prosecutor, the Commission finds that Judge Brinegar needs to guard against the potential for perceived bias.  Nonetheless, survey respondents were unanimous in finding that Judge Brinegar was “completely neutral.” Commission members were very impressed with Judge Brinegar.  During her Commission interview, Judge Brinegar expressed openness to constructive feedback and demonstrated tremendous insight with respect to her strengths and weaknesses during her first couple of years on the bench.

Surveys & reports

  • 2022 cycle
    • 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 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 Survey of Appellate Judges .14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brinegar, 110 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 110 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 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge Brinegar All District Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 85% 82% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 11% 11% 5% 6% 6% 3% 3% 0% Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge Brinegar All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Brinegar Brinegar Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 92% 82% 83% 85% standards No, does not meet 5% 12% 11% 11% performance standards No opinion 3% 6% 6% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge All District Brinegar Judges Case 3.3 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 59 44% 66% 39 Non- 91 6% 78% 71 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Brinegar received 1 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 32 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 37 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 36 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 37 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 95 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 38 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.9 3.1 3.9 N/A 16 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 38 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 37 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 52 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.8 105 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 38 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 68 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 69 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7 107 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.7 108 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.5 107 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 70 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Score 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 38 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.6 103 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 32 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 65 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 68 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 63 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 64 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brinegar Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brinegar Attorneys Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Brinegar Brinegar Non- Brinegar Score Judges Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 69 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 69 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 45 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 67 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Brinegar 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Brinegar enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brinegar Score 3.0 Judge Brinegar District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.0 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brinegar, 110 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 110 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% 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 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 143,430 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 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 June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 15 ## Page 16 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. 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 November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. 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 was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 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 2017 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. 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, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 16 ## Page 17 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Brinegar to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 133 59 0 39 66% Law Enforcement 106 1 0 1 100% Litigant 1611 37 254 23 62% Juror 99 40 10 36 90% Others 24 13 0 11 85% Total Non-Attorneys 1840 91 264 71 78% Total Respondents 1973 150 264 110 73% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 19
    • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Overall score
      3.6
      judge rating, 0–4 scale
      Attorneys recommend
      100%
      38 respondents
      Non-attorneys recommend
      83%
      respondent count not on record
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 8 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications . 10 Demeanor . 11 Diligence . 12 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brinegar, 53 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 53 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 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge Brinegar All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 83% 83% 79% 80% 60% 40% 17% 20% 16% 12% 4% 5% 0% Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge Brinegar All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Brinegar Brinegar Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 83% 83% 79% standards No, does not meet 0% 12% 17% 16% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 0% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.3 Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge All District Brinegar Judges Case Management 3.6 3.4 Application and Knowledge 3.5 3.3 of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 38 22% 71% 27 Non- 26 - - 26 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 Brinegar 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 6 ## Page 7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 39 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.5 46 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 3.3 3.7 3.1 38 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.3 44 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.6 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.3 48 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 25 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 22 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 25 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.2 N/A 3.2 24 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 22 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.6 50 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 22 thorough and well-reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 25 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 25 being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 3.5 4 3.4 50 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.4 50 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.2 N/A 3.4 25 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 24 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 25 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 24 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 24 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 25 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 23 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 25 Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 24 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brinegar Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Brinegar Brinegar Non- Brinegar Score Judges Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 25 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.2 3.2 N/A 3.2 25 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 17 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 23 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.4 50 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 25 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Brinegar 7 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Brinegar enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brinegar Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Brinegar District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.7 3.7 7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brinegar, 53 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 53 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 15 ## Page 16 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. 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, 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 16 ## Page 17 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 39 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 7 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Brinegar to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2022. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 175 38 27 71% Staff - 11 11 - Others 201 11 11 100% Juror - 3 3 - Citizen Feedback - 1 1 Total Non-Attorneys - 26 26 - Total Respondents - 64 53 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar 19
  • 2016 cycle
    • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 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 Survey of Appellate Judges .14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brinegar, 110 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 110 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 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge Brinegar All District Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 85% 82% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 11% 11% 5% 6% 6% 3% 3% 0% Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge Brinegar All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Brinegar Brinegar Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 92% 82% 83% 85% standards No, does not meet 5% 12% 11% 11% performance standards No opinion 3% 6% 6% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Brinegar All District Judges Judge All District Brinegar Judges Case 3.3 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 59 44% 66% 39 Non- 91 6% 78% 71 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Brinegar received 1 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 32 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 37 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 36 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 37 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 95 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 38 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.9 3.1 3.9 N/A 16 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 38 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 37 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 52 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.8 105 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 38 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 68 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 69 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7 107 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.7 108 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.5 107 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 70 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brinegar Score 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brinegar Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Brinegar Number of Brinegar Judges Brinegar Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 38 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.6 103 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 32 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 65 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 68 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 63 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 64 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brinegar Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brinegar Attorneys Judge Brinegar Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Brinegar Brinegar Non- Brinegar Score Judges Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 69 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 69 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 45 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 67 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Brinegar 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Brinegar enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brinegar Score 3.0 Judge Brinegar District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.0 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brinegar, 110 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 110 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% 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 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 143,430 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 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 June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 15 ## Page 16 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. 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 November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. 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 was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 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 2017 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. 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, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 16 ## Page 17 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Brinegar to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 133 59 0 39 66% Law Enforcement 106 1 0 1 100% Litigant 1611 37 254 23 62% Juror 99 40 10 36 90% Others 24 13 0 11 85% Total Non-Attorneys 1840 91 264 71 78% Total Respondents 1973 150 264 110 73% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge C. Michelle Brinegar 19
    • 2016 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.

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