Stanley A. Brinkley

Trial Court · Baca · Baca

Meets Standards(Retain)3 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2016 retention cycle
Trial Court · Baca · Baca
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 74.0% yes
6,256 yes · 2,192 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The 15th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends, by a vote of 8 to 1, with one member absent, that Chief Judge Stanley A. Brinkley BE RETAINED. Judge Brinkley was appointed to the 15th Judicial District Court in October 2001 and became Chief Judge in 2003. Prior to his judicial appointment, he privately practiced civil, criminal, domestic, and transactional law. Judge Brinkley received his law degree from the University of Wyoming Law School in 1976. He is actively involved in the community: he organizes and leads a boys’ basketball camp every year; he developed and continues to run the Adopt an Athlete program through the local college’s booster club, which he also presides over; and he participates in his local church where he is an elder. Judge Brinkley’s caseload is primarily criminal actions. The remainder includes domestic relations matters, juvenile matters, civil actions, and very few mental health and probate actions. As Chief Judge, Judge Brinkley also handles many administrative duties for the District. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Brinkley, reviewed opinions he authored, observed his courtroom, met with the Public Defender’s Office to listen to its concerns, and reviewed surveys completed by attorneys and non-attorneys who interacted with him. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Stanley A. Brinkley be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Fifty-six percent of attorneys recommended retention, thirty-seven percent recommended not to retain, and six percent made no recommendation. Among non-attorneys, fifty-nine percent of respondents recommended retention, thirty-seven precent recommended not to retain, and five percent made no recommendation. A total of 16 attorneys and 21 non-attorneys completed the judicial performance surveys. Attorney respondents gave Judge Brinkley high marks in diligence, where his rating exceeded the average combined rating of all district judges in several areas. Specifically, attorneys cited his willingness to handle complicated, time-consuming cases and his preparedness in the courtroom. The judge also received high marks for the dignity he projects and provides the proceedings. However, attorneys commented that he appeared biased at times. Non-attorneys commented that his experience and knowledge base were strengths but that he appeared to impose harsher than necessary sentences and gave defendants too many chances. The Commission did not observe the weaknesses cited by survey respondents during courtroom observations and was satisfied, during the interview that Judge Brinkley was aware of these criticisms and is dedicated to ensuring fairness in his courtroom.
2010 retention cycle
Trial Court · Baca · Baca
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 71.1% yes
4,949 yes · 2,014 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance for recommends that Chief Judge Stanley A. Brinkley BE RETAINED by a vote of 9 to 0, with one recusal due to absence from Judge Brinkley’s interview. Judge Stanley A. Brinkley was born in Lamar, and had a private law practice there after graduating from the University of Wyoming Law School in 1976. He was appointed to the bench in October of 2001. Judge Brinkley is active in his church and other community groups, such as serving on the Board of Directors for the Lamar Community College Sports Booster Club. Judge Brinkley’s scores from those attorneys who completed an assessment form were almost uniformly above the average for all judges. His average overall scores from non-attorneys were 3.54, only 0.10 below the average given all district judges from that group of survey respondents. During his interview with the Commission, Judge Brinkley stated, “People expect a judge to decide in a way that makes sense.” This is a good summation of how he attempts to interact with the public when they have dealings with his court. Many survey respondents commented on his efforts to be patient and fair. In his self-evaluation he said, “I believe if litigants and counsel are treated in a courteous manner, they will come away believing that they were fairly and equally treated.” Judge Brinkley took the bench at a time of heightened concern about security in public buildings. He noted that rural courts did not have the same level of security as those in larger cities and helped write legislation to correct this problem. He has served as Chairman of the Colorado Court Security Commission since its inception in 2006. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 91% recommended to retain, 10% not to retain, and 0% expressed no opinion. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 84% recommended to retain, 9% not to retain, and 7% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 91% recommended to retain and 9% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
2004 retention cycle
Trial Court · Baca · Baca
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 74.1% yes
5,889 yes · 2,059 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2004 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2004 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Stanley A. Brinkley BE RETAINED. Judge Brinkley was appointed to the District Court bench for the Fifteenth Judicial District on October 16, 2001. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Brinkley was in private practice in Lamar, Colorado specializing in general civil and criminal litigation with additional work and experience in real estate transactions and probate matters. Judge Brinkley received his undergraduate degree from Adams State College and his law degree from University of Wyoming. Judge Brinkley presides over civil, criminal, child welfare, probate and various other types of cases as a district court judge for the Fifteenth Judicial District. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Brinkley from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbal comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also received numerous written comments from the public which commended Judge Brinkley for the dedication, skills and integrity he brings to the position of district court judge. The Commission considered a written self-evaluation of Judge Brinkley and conducted a personal interview of Judge Brinkley who was very candid and open with the Commission. Judge Brinkley has a high respect for the judicial system, and he strives to and does perform the tasks of a district court judge with the honor and attention the position of district court judge requires. Judge Brinkley understands that he must maintain firm control over the courtroom while at the same time balancing the need for control with the respect and courtesy he shows to litigants, attorneys, witnesses, and jurors. Judge Brinkley understands and effectively implements his strengths as a judge and excels above other Colorado district court judges because of this. Despite being in the position for only 2 years, Judge Brinkley has an immense grasp of the job of district court judge. He also understands and improves upon any weaknesses which he or others identify. Judge Brinkley scored above other district court judges statewide in all but one sub-category. The areas in which Judge Brinkley scored above other district court judges considered for retention at this time include case management, application and knowledge of the law, communication, demeanor, diligence, lack of bias, balancing leniency with harshness, promptness in rulings and proceedings, maintaining appropriate control over proceedings, applying the law, knowledge of procedures and rules, his ability to identify and analyze facts, and like categories. Of the attorneys responding to the questionnaire, 100% recommended Judge Brinkley be retained. Of the non-attorneys responding to the questionnaire, 92% recommended Judge Brinkley be retained. The Commission recommends Judge Brinkley for retention in greatest part because the information received and studied revealed Judge Brinkley to be honest, fair and hardworking, and because Judge Brinkley succeeds in looking out for the rights of individuals and promoting justice.

Surveys & reports

2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley Prowers County Courthouse 301 South Main, Suite 300 Lamar, CO 81052 Dear Judge Brinkley: 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. Stanley A. Brinkley 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 Stanley A. Brinkley received an overall combined average grade of 3.46 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.42, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.50, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Brinkley Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.46 3.42 3.50 Sample Size - 46 116 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 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 Brinkley’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Brinkley Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.63 3.58 4 3.67 26 2008 2.89 2.16 3 3.62 16 2009 3.53 3.74 12 3.32 34 2010 3.63 3.68 15 3.58 24 2012 3.22 3.05 12 3.39 16 Overall 3.46 3.42 46 3.50 116 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 district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.87, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.30. 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 Brinkley’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Brinkley Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Brinkley Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.84 20 17% 3.43 96 83% 3.87 3.30 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4466)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Sample Size = 46 A B C D Fail DK/NA Brinkley Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 54% 26% 0% 0% 0% 20% 3.68 3.39 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 24% 4% 2% 2% 0% 3.52 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 54% 35% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3.43 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 22% 9% 4% 4% 0% 3.30 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.48 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 70% 20% 7% 2% 2% 0% 3.52 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 54% 30% 7% 2% 4% 2% 3.31 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 43% 15% 15% 9% 4% 13% 2.98 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 34% 28% 19% 9% 3% 6% 2.87 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 78% 20% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3.74 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 71% 21% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.63 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.69 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 85% 9% 4% 0% 2% 0% 3.74 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 24% 0% 4% 4% 0% 3.46 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 52% 28% 9% 4% 7% 0% 3.15 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 61% 22% 13% 2% 2% 0% 3.37 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.43 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 54% 30% 7% 4% 4% 0% 3.26 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 61% 30% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 76% 20% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.76 3.40 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.50 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.42 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Brinkley Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 20% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 16% 27% Completely neutral 36% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 24% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 5% 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 67% 57% Recommend retain 8% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 6% Total Retain 75% 81% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 16% 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% 57% Recommend retain 8% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 1% Total Retain 75% 81% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 16% 11% Don't Know 0% 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.42 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.48 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.68 case after trial. 3.39 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.30 3.29 3.17 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.52 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.28 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 2.98 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2.87 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.14 when circumstances are similar. 3.69 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.74 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.63 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.29 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.43 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.74 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.46 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.15 neutral manner. 3.28 3.37 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.50 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.26 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.49 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.76 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.40 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 20% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 16% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 36% Completely Neutral 47% 24% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 4% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain 57% 8% Recommend retain 24% Excluding DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Brinkley Judges* Total Retain 75% 81% 8% Recommend not retain Neither 8% 9% 5% Total Not Retain 16% 11% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain 57% 8% Recommend retain 24% Including DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Brinkley Judges* 8% Recommend not retain Total Retain 75% 81% 5% Neither 8% 9% 8% Total Not Retain 16% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total DK 0% 1% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 166)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Sample Size = 116 A B C D Fail DK/NA Brinkley Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 16% 6% 2% 4% 2% 3.48 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 3% 3% 5% 1% 3.50 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 70% 18% 3% 3% 6% 1% 3.44 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 63% 22% 4% 3% 7% 2% 3.34 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.44 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 70% 18% 4% 2% 5% 1% 3.47 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 66% 18% 7% 0% 7% 2% 3.39 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 14% 3% 1% 3% 28% 3.55 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 15% 4% 1% 4% 4% 3.56 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.49 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 12% 4% 1% 3% 1% 3.65 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 18% 3% 0% 1% 2% 3.73 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 13% 4% 1% 3% 1% 3.66 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.68 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 65% 19% 10% 3% 2% 2% 3.45 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 17% 4% 0% 2% 1% 3.69 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 4% 3.50 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 72% 18% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3.58 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 62% 28% 7% 1% 2% 1% 3.48 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 16% 6% 4% 5% 5% 3.34 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 21% 4% 1% 6% 5% 3.39 3.61 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 62% 21% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3.36 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.36 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.50 3.64 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Brinkley Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 19% 9% Competely neutral 73% 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.18 0.07 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 16% 9% Competely neutral 65% 81% Lenient sentencing total 21% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.17 0.05 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 69% 74% Recommend retain 8% 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 4% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 15% 5% Total Retain 77% 89% Neither 8% 4% Total Not Retain 15% 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 69% 71% Recommend retain 8% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 4% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 15% 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 0% 4% Total Retain 77% 85% Neither 8% 4% Total Not Retain 15% 7% Don't Know 0% 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.50 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.44 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.48 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.50 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.44 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.34 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.58 3.49 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.47 heard. 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.39 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.55 themselves. 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.56 or her case. 3.66 3.68 Q3. Overall Communications 3.73 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.65 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.73 understand. 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.66 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.54 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.45 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.69 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.50 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.58 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.48 little wasted time. 3.57 3.36 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.34 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.39 possible outside pressure. 3.61 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.36 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.18 Stanley A. Brinkley 0.07 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.17 Stanley A. Brinkley 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 69% Strongly recommend retain 74% 8% Recommend retain 15% Excluding DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain 4% All Dist Judge Brinkley Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 77% 89% 2% Neither 8% 4% Total Not Retain 15% 7% 15% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 69% Strongly recommend retain 71% 8% Recommend retain 14% 8% Neither retain nor not retain 4% Including DK Respondents All Dist 0% Judge Brinkley Judges* Recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 77% 85% Neither 8% 4% 15% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 15% 7% 5% Total DK 0% 4% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges* * Includes only the District 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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 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 District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges 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 district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” 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 District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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 District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges 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 district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all district 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 District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 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 rates. 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 Brinkley 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 district judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 24 11 2 0 11 50.0% Defense Attorneys 27 17 1 0 9 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 27 8 1 0 18 69.2% Other Attorneys Civil 19 9 2 0 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 98 46 6 0 46 50.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 13 8 3 1 1 10.0% Other 3 2 1 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 17 8 0 1 8 47.1% Defendant 384 213 140 3 28 11.5% Civil Litigant 274 167 53 2 52 23.5% Witness 4 3 0 0 1 25.0% Other 7 3 2 0 2 40.0% Jurors 47 24 2 1 20 44.4% Employees, including Interpreters 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Probation Officers 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 753 428 201 8 116 21.0% Grand Total: 851 474 207 8 162 25.2% 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 District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3130 2013 120 1 996 33.1% Defense Attorneys 4130 2444 84 0 1602 39.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 248 125 13 0 110 46.8% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4708 2028 213 2 2465 54.8% Other Attorneys Civil 4027 1956 366 2 1703 46.5% GAL 29 12 0 0 17 58.6% Total Attorneys 16272 8578 796 5 6893 44.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 109 66 23 5 15 17.4% Witness 5404 2746 1591 265 802 21.0% Other 832 471 248 10 103 17.6% Law Enforcement 4235 2320 1024 167 724 22.5% Defendant 20502 9362 9533 132 1475 13.4% Civil Litigant 12103 6801 2810 219 2273 24.5% Witness 498 251 99 15 133 33.3% Other 454 196 99 21 138 38.9% Jurors 17494 7070 1191 267 8966 55.0% Employees, including Interpreters 233 68 29 22 114 55.9% Probation Officers 116 42 4 8 62 55.4% Total Non-attorneys 61980 29393 16651 1131 14805 32.7% Grand Total: 78252 37971 17447 1136 21698 35.7% * Includes only the District 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 District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6893 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. 51% 20% 8% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 13% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 11% 5% 2% 2% 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 24% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 19% 10% 6% 5% 25% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 39% 26% 10% 5% 3% 17% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 23% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 23% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 66% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 19% 10% 5% 4% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 23% 9% 5% 3% 4% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 17% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.40 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 District 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 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.64 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 12% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 68% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.63 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.61 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% Competely neutral 81% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.05 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 89% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 71% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% Total Retain 85% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the District 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
- 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 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 Appellate Judges.15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Results .17 Survey of Non Attorneys .18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Retention .21 Demeanor .22 Fairness .23 Communications .24 Diligence .25 Application of Law .26 Bias .27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .28 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Stanley A. Brinkley, 46 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 37 agreed they had worked with Judge Brinkley enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 37 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 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 2.98 Attorneys 3.12 Total Non-Attorneys 2.88 Juror 4.00 Non-Attorney Other* 2.82 Table 1 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 2.98 3.12 2.88 4.00 2.82 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 58% Attorneys 56% Total Non-Attorneys 59% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 58% Table 2 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 58% 56% 59% 100% 58% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.29 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.80 2.67 4.00 2.60 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.28 3.19 4.00 3.15 Diligence 3.19 3.05 4.00 3.01 Demeanor 3.06 2.67 4.00 2.60 Fairness N/A 2.80 4.00 2.74 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 41 1 16 45% 11% Total Non- 459 173 21 10% 25% Attorneys Staff 3 0 2 67% 0% Jurors 21 1 1 5% 0% Other Non- 435 172 18 10% 28% 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brinkley, 18 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 16 agreed they had worked with Judge Brinkley enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 16 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 “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,732 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. c. Questions 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 5 ## Page 8 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). 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 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. 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 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 bias and retention questions. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 6 ## Page 9 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 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, 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. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Stanley A. Brinkley be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Total Retain 56% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 37% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 60% 50% 40% 31% 20% 13% 9% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 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 Brinkley All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 Brinkley 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 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 3.29 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.19 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.31 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 6 Case Management Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge Number of Responses: A B C D Fail DK/NA District Brinkley 16 Judges Promptly issuing a decision 56% 19% 13% 6% -- 6% 3.33 3.41 on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate 56% 31% -- 13% -- -- 3.31 3.38 control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 50% 25% 19% 6% -- -- 3.19 3.32 motions Setting reasonable 63% 19% 13% 6% -- -- 3.37 3.29 schedules for cases Case Management Overall Average 3.29 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 Brinkley on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.18 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.80 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.69 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.69 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 2.64 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.81 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.19 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 16 Brinkley Judges Being able to identify and 56% 19% 13% 13% -- -- 3.19 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 38% 25% 19% 19% -- -- 2.81 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 33% 17% 25% 8% 8% 8% 2.64 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 31% 38% 6% 19% 6% -- 2.69 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 31% 38% 6% 19% 6% -- 2.69 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.80 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 Brinkley 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 3.39 Communications Overall Average 3.28 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 3.19 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.37 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 8 Communications Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 16 Brinkley Judges Making sure all participants 63% 13% 25% -- -- -- 3.37 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 50% 19% 31% -- -- -- 3.19 3.28 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.28 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 Brinkley 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 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 3.06 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.69 3.33 Treating participants with respect 2.94 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.56 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 9 Demeanor Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 16 Brinkley Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 81% 6% -- 13% -- -- 3.56 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 50% 25% -- 19% 6% -- 2.94 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 50% 6% 19% 13% 13% -- 2.69 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.06 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 Brinkley 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. 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 3.19 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 3.47 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 3.44 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 2.81 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 10 Diligence Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 16 Brinkley Judges Using good judgment in application of 31% 44% 6% 13% 6% -- 2.81 3.16 relevant law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 69% 13% 13% 6% -- -- 3.44 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 56% 25% 13% -- -- 6% 3.47 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.19 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Brinkley in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 100% 80% 60% 51% 42% 40% 25% 23% 17% 20% 11% 11% 8% 8% 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 Brinkley All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brinkley, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Brinkley enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. The initial invitation was sent on November 4, 2015. A reminder email to those that had not already completed their evaluations was sent on November 16th. 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 Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 15 ## Page 18 e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 16 ## Page 19 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B,C,D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 9 All District Judges 3.55 Judge Brinkley 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Stanley A. All Brinkley Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Brinkley Judges Responses: 11 Overall performance as a 43% 10% -- -- -- 48% 3.82 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Stanley A. Brinkley, 28 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Brinkley enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. 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 October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th 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 October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, 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 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 18 ## Page 21 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or 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. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch 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 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 19 ## Page 22 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Total Retain 59% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 37% Figure 10 100% 80% 74% 60% 50% 40% 32% 20% 12% 9% 5% 6% 5% 3% 6% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Brinkley All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 21 ## Page 24 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 2.67 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 2.48 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.48 3.65 Treating participants with respect 2.95 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 13 Demeanor Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 21 Brinkley Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 60% 5% -- 15% 20% -- 2.70 3.66 Treating participants with respect 62% 10% 10% -- 19% -- 2.95 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 43% 24% -- 5% 29% -- 2.48 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 43% 14% 14% 5% 24% -- 2.48 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 2.67 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 22 ## Page 25 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 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 2.80 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 2.90 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.27 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 2.50 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 2.86 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 14 Fairness Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 21 Brinkley Judges Giving participants an 48% 19% 14% 10% 10% -- 2.86 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 50% 10% 5% 10% 25% -- 2.50 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 48% 10% 5% 5% 5% 29% 3.27 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 52% 14% 14% 10% 10% -- 2.90 3.64 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 2.80 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 23 ## Page 26 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 3.71 Communications Overall Average 3.19 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.24 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.05 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.24 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 15 Communications Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 21 Brinkley Judges Making sure all participants understand the 67% 10% 10% 10% 5% -- 3.24 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 55% 15% 20% -- 10% -- 3.05 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 62% 14% 14% 5% 5% -- 3.24 3.75 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.19 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 24 ## Page 27 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 3.62 Diligence Overall Average 3.05 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 2.75 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.10 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.05 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.26 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.05 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 16 Diligence Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 21 Brinkley Judges Beginning court on time 55% 20% 10% 5% 10% -- 3.05 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 60% 20% 5% -- 10% 5% 3.26 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 62% 14% -- 14% 10% -- 3.05 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 57% 14% 14% 10% 5% -- 3.10 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 50% 15% 10% 10% 15% -- 2.75 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.05 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 25 ## Page 28 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 3.56 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.67 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.57 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 2.48 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 2.95 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Brinkley Table 17 Application of Law Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 21 Brinkley Judges Giving reasons for rulings 52% 19% 10% 10% 10% -- 2.95 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 52% -- 14% 10% 24% -- 2.48 3.56 outside pressure Being able to identify and 48% 5% 19% 14% 14% -- 2.57 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.67 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Brinkley is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Brinkley is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 82% 80% 60% 48% 40% 29% 20% 14% 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% 4% 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 Brinkley All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 27 ## Page 30 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 Brinkley are. If you feel Judge Brinkley generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 82% 80% 60% 38% 40% 24% 19% 20% 14% 7% 3% 5% 4% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Brinkley All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 28
2010 cycle
- 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley Prowers County Courthouse 301 South Main, Suite 300 Lamar, CO 81052 Dear Judge Brinkley: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley September 24, 2009 Page 2 Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2211)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Sample Size = 21 A B C D Fail DK/NA Brinkley Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 29% 0% 0% 0% 19% 3.65 3.38 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 29% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3.52 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 52% 38% 0% 0% 5% 5% 3.40 3.19 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 10% 5% 5% 0% 3.24 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.45 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 19% 5% 5% 0% 0% 3.57 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 57% 29% 5% 5% 5% 0% 3.29 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 43% 19% 14% 5% 0% 19% 3.24 2.89 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 12% 19% 6% 0% 31% 3.00 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.28 3.10 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 81% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.81 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 71% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.71 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.76 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 86% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.81 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 29% 0% 5% 0% 0% 3.57 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 29% 5% 5% 5% 0% 3.29 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 29% 14% 5% 0% 0% 3.29 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.49 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 43% 43% 5% 5% 5% 0% 3.14 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 67% 19% 5% 5% 0% 5% 3.55 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 62% 33% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3.65 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.45 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 3.45 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Brinkley Judges Sample Size = 21 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 28% Completely neutral 25% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 50% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 0% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 80% 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 7% Total Retain 90% 87% Total Not Retain 10% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 80% 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 6% Total Retain 90% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 10% 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.45 Overall Average Grade 3.26 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 3.30 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.65 case after trial. 3.38 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.52 proceedings. 3.39 3.40 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.19 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.24 3.22 3.28 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.10 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.57 relevant facts. 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.29 3.16 3.24 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.89 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.00 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.07 3.76 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.81 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.71 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.28 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Ju d20g09e In tSerimta Jundilceialy P eArfo.rm Banrcei nSukrvleey y 4 ## Page 8 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.49 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.81 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.46 3.57 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.35 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.29 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.29 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.21 3.45 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.26 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.14 releveant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.55 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.65 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 25% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 25% Completely Neutral 46% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain in office 71% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Dist Judge Brinkley Judges 5% Total Retain 90% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 10% 13% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain in office 68% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Dist 0% Judge Brinkley Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 90% 83% Undecided 0% 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 10% 12% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 5533)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Sample Size = 53 A B C D Fail DK/NA Brinkley Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 17% 4% 0% 6% 4% 3.51 3.67 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 72% 17% 2% 0% 8% 2% 3.48 3.67 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3.54 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 64% 25% 2% 2% 6% 2% 3.42 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.49 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 70% 19% 0% 4% 6% 2% 3.46 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 62% 23% 6% 0% 6% 4% 3.41 3.60 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 48% 19% 2% 2% 2% 27% 3.50 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 66% 17% 6% 2% 6% 4% 3.41 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.45 3.62 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 15% 2% 2% 0% 2% 3.75 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3.77 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 87% 8% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.81 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.78 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 64% 19% 11% 2% 2% 2% 3.44 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 85% 9% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.79 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 66% 19% 6% 2% 2% 6% 3.54 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 68% 21% 8% 0% 2% 2% 3.56 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 58% 31% 8% 0% 2% 2% 3.45 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 19% 2% 6% 4% 6% 3.42 3.56 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 25% 2% 0% 4% 6% 3.54 3.59 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 62% 21% 8% 2% 6% 2% 3.35 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.44 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.54 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Brinkley Judges Sample Size = 53 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 15% 11% Competely neutral 82% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.21 0.11 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 7% 11% Competely neutral 81% 80% Lenient sentencing total 12% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.3 0.12 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 86% 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 5% Total Retain 93% 93% Total Not Retain 7% 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 78% 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 10% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 4% Total Retain 84% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 10% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.54 Overall Average Grade 3.63 3.49 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.51 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.67 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.48 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.54 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.42 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.55 3.45 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.62 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.46 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.41 case without bias. 3.60 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.50 themselves. 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.41 or her case. 3.64 3.78 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.75 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.69 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.77 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.81 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Ju 2d00g9 eInt eSrimt aJundiclieal yPe rAfor.m aBncrei Snurkvelyey 10 ## Page 14 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.56 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.44 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.79 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.54 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.56 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.45 little wasted time. 3.55 3.44 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.58 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.42 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.54 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.35 relevant facts. 3.58 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.21 Stanley A. Brinkley 0.11 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.30 Stanley A. Brinkley 0.12 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Brinkley Judges Total Retain 93% 93% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 7% 7% 2% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 78% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 10% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Brinkley Judges Total Retain 84% 88% 0% Undecided 10% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 6% 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning district judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in District Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Brinkley. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney 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 & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Brinkley is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 8 2 2 0 4 66.7% Defense Attorneys 3 1 0 0 2 66.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 12 2 2 0 8 80.0% Other Attorneys Civil 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 5 0 0 0 5 100.0% Total Attorneys 31 6 4 0 21 77.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other 3 2 1 0 0 0.0% Defendant 87 62 17 0 8 11.4% Civil Litigant 145 84 31 1 29 25.4% Witness 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 6 4 2 0 0 0.0% Jurors 20 5 0 0 15 75.0% Total Non-attorneys 265 160 51 1 53 24.8% Grand Total: 296 166 55 1 74 30.7% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all district judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all district judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all district judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 3921 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 21% 7% 3% 1% 21% 3.39 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 21% 7% 3% 1% 21% 3.38 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 25% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 26% 11% 4% 2% 13% 3.19 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 26% 11% 4% 2% 13% 3.20 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 28% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 28% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.28 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 28% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 27% 11% 6% 3% 4% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 29% 20% 11% 6% 4% 29% 2.89 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 30% 22% 10% 4% 3% 31% 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.10 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 25% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 46% 26% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 65% 22% 7% 3% 2% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 63% 20% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 22% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.25 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 22% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 51% 26% 11% 5% 3% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 49% 28% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 6% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 20% 8% 4% 2% 16% 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 20% 8% 4% 2% 16% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 3921 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 17850 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 77% 15% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.60 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.61 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.62 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 15% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.59 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 17850 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 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.11 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 11% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.12 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
- 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley Prowers County Courthouse 301 South Main, Suite 300 Lamar, CO 81052 Dear Judge Brinkley: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on three surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of appellate judges and third a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Stanley A. Brinkley March 30, 2010 Page 2 The fifth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 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 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Stanley A. Brinkley an overall average grade1 of 3.48, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Brinkley an overall average grade of 3.54 resulting in a combined grade of 3.51. The average combined grade for all district judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.48. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Brinkley Average Grades Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.51 3.48 3.54 Sample Size - 22 72 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Brinkley’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Brinkley Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Grade2 Average Grade Average Grade 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.63 2.89 3.52 3.72 3.58 2.16 3.66 3.67 3.62 3.37 Sample Size - - - - 6 4 3 9 0 26 16 30 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 District judges who were appointed between 2005 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 61%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for district judges was 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Brinkley’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district Judge Brinkley Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.79 3.47 Percent of Sample 21% 79% Sample Size 15 57 District Judge Average 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Brinkley’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Sample Size = 22 A B C D Fail DK/NA Brinkley Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 55% 27% 0% 0% 0% 18% 3.67 3.42 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 68% 27% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3.55 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 55% 36% 0% 0% 5% 5% 3.43 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 59% 23% 9% 5% 5% 0% 3.27 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.48 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 23% 5% 5% 0% 0% 3.55 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 55% 32% 5% 5% 5% 0% 3.27 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 23% 14% 5% 0% 18% 3.22 3.09 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 12% 18% 6% 0% 29% 3.08 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.28 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 73% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.73 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.78 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 86% 9% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 68% 27% 0% 5% 0% 0% 3.59 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 55% 32% 5% 5% 5% 0% 3.27 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 27% 14% 5% 0% 0% 3.32 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 45% 41% 5% 5% 5% 0% 3.18 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 64% 23% 5% 5% 0% 5% 3.52 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 64% 32% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3.67 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.46 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.48 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Brinkley Judges Sample Size = 22 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 20% 27% Completely neutral 40% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 40% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 81% 74% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 91% 89% Total Not Retain 10% 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 81% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 14% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 91% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 4% Total Not Retain 10% 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.48 Overall Average Grade 3.32 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.48 3.34 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.67 case after trial. 3.42 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.55 proceedings. 3.43 3.43 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.27 3.25 3.28 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.55 relevant facts. 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.27 3.13 3.22 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.09 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.08 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.16 3.78 Q3. Overall Communication 3.44 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.82 the proceedings. 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.73 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.32 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Ju d20g10e Ju Sdictiaal Pnerlfeormya nAce. S Burvreiy nRekpolert y 6 ## Page 10 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.50 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.38 3.82 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.51 3.59 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.27 in a neutral manner. 3.32 3.32 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.28 3.46 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.32 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.18 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.52 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.67 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 20% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 40% Completely Neutral 47% 40% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain 74% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist Judge Brinkley Judges 5% Total Retain 91% 89% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 10% 11% 5% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain 70% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 14% All Dist 0% Judge Brinkley Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 91% 84% Undecided or DK 0% 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 10% 11% 5% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Stanley A. Brinkley All Sample Size = 27 Retention No Stanley A. District Evaluations of Judge Brinkley = 13 A B C D Fail Grade Brinkley Judges Judge Brinkley in terms of overall performance as a judge. 32% 16% 4% 0% 0% 48% 3.54 3.53 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. While 27 out of 29 appellate judges completed the questionnaire, as expected most appellate judges only graded some of the listed district judges, marking the rest as “No Grade.” The number of evaluations shown below the sample size at the top of the page is the number of questionnaires returned with a letter grade for the judge. Please see the copy of the questionnaire in the Questionnaires section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7722)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Sample Size = 72 A B C D Fail DK/NA Brinkley Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 20% 4% 0% 4% 3% 3.54 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 17% 1% 1% 6% 1% 3.53 3.68 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 18% 3% 4% 3% 1% 3.51 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 63% 25% 3% 3% 4% 1% 3.43 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 69% 19% 3% 3% 4% 1% 3.49 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 63% 24% 7% 0% 4% 3% 3.44 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 17% 1% 1% 1% 28% 3.59 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 68% 20% 4% 1% 4% 3% 3.49 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.50 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 14% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3.73 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 18% 4% 0% 0% 1% 3.73 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 83% 11% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.77 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 63% 19% 11% 3% 1% 3% 3.43 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 13% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.76 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 68% 17% 7% 1% 3% 4% 3.52 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 70% 18% 8% 0% 1% 1% 3.59 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 58% 32% 7% 0% 1% 1% 3.47 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 60% 21% 7% 4% 3% 6% 3.38 3.57 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 63% 24% 4% 1% 4% 4% 3.45 3.60 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 61% 23% 7% 3% 4% 3% 3.36 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.40 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.54 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Stanley A. All District Brinkley Judges Sample Size = 72 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 17% 10% Competely neutral 72% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 10% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.09 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% 10% Competely neutral 73% 80% Lenient sentencing total 16% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.27 0.07 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 81% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 4% Total Retain 91% 93% Total Not Retain 9% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 4% Total Retain 84% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 6% Total Not Retain 9% 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.54 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.50 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.54 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.53 3.68 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.51 manner. 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.43 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.57 3.50 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.49 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.44 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.59 themselves. 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.49 or her case. 3.65 3.74 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.73 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.73 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.77 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Ju 2d01g0 eJu dSicitala Pnerfloermya nAce .S uBrveryi Rnekpolret y 14 ## Page 18 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.55 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.43 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.76 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.52 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.59 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.47 little wasted time. 3.55 3.40 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.59 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.38 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.45 possible outside pressure. 3.60 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.36 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.09 Stanley A. Brinkley 0.08 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.27 Stanley A. Brinkley 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15 ## Page 19 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Brinkley Judges Total Retain 91% 93% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 9% 6% 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 7% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Brinkley Judges Total Retain 84% 88% 3% Undecided 7% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 9% 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: All 29 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2010. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning his or her overall performance as a judge. (See Questionnaire section.) The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were asked to write a comment about each district judge. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges lists the comments district and appellate justices and judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-seven questionnaires were returned, though not all 27 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of 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 judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 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, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Brinkley is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley 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 8 2 2 0 4 66.7% Defense Attorneys 8 3 0 0 5 62.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 18 4 2 0 12 75.0% Other Attorneys Civil 3 2 0 0 1 33.3% Total Attorneys 37 11 4 0 22 66.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 3 2 1 0 0 0.0% Other 3 2 1 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 4 2 0 0 2 50.0% Defendant 126 83 32 0 11 11.7% Civil Litigant 182 106 35 1 40 27.2% Witness 3 2 0 0 1 33.3% Other 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 6 4 2 0 0 0.0% Jurors 20 5 0 0 15 75.0% Employees 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 351 207 71 1 72 25.7% Grand Total: 388 218 75 1 94 30.0% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1053 667 26 1 359 35.0% Defense Attorneys 1623 920 42 0 661 41.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 23 14 1 0 8 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2540 1157 133 4 1246 51.9% Guardian ad litem 14 5 0 0 9 64.3% Other Attorneys Civil 776 499 21 2 254 33.7% Attorneys, Unknown Role 30 7 5 0 18 72.0% Total Attorneys 6059 3269 228 7 2555 43.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 3572 1855 929 100 688 27.1% Defendant 11205 5065 5122 70 948 15.8% Victim 31 18 7 1 5 21.7% Witness 3941 2016 1271 186 468 18.8% Other 1045 590 309 11 135 18.6% Civil Litigant 8005 4441 1954 117 1493 25.2% Witness 266 133 61 6 66 33.2% Other 195 84 51 6 54 39.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 700 328 282 1 89 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 28960 14530 9986 498 3946 20.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 11195 4330 560 132 6173 58.8% Employees 283 113 35 22 113 50.0% Total Other 11507 4445 595 154 6313 57.9% Total 46526 22244 10809 659 12814 35.9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. None of the three surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 2555 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 20% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.42 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 25% 10% 4% 2% 14% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 27% 11% 4% 2% 5% 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 43% 24% 11% 6% 3% 13% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 21% 10% 5% 4% 20% 3.09 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 20% 8% 3% 2% 36% 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 23% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3.55 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 21% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 24% 10% 4% 3% 5% 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 27% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 55% 25% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 54% 19% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 2555 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 89% Total Not Retain 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 14% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 30 ## Page 34 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 10232 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.68 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.63 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 8% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.62 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 16% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 6% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 11% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.60 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 31 ## Page 35 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 10232 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 10% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 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 80% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.07 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 32 ## Page 36 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges DK/ Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. 28% 15% 3% 0% 0% 54% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 37 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 38 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 39 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 40 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 41 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 42 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (continued) No Grade Dennis Hall .................... A B C D F James P. Kelly .............. A B C D F Philip J. McNulty ............ A B C D F Gilbert Martinez ............. A B C D F Stephen M. Munsinger .. A B C D F G. David Miller .............. A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 5th Judicial District Edward D. Bronfin ......... A B C D F R. Thomas Moorhead ... A B C D F Norman D. Haglund ...... A B C D F Karen A. Romeo ........... A B C D F William W. Hood, III ....... A B C D F Michael A. Martinez ....... A B C D F 6th Judicial District .... William D. Robbins ....... A B C D F Gregory G. Lyman ........ A B C D F Donna J. Schmalberger A B C D F Jeffrey R. Wilson ........... A B C D F Herbert L. Stern, III ........ A B C D F 7th Judicial District C. Jean Stewart ............. A B C D F Jeff B. Herron ................ A B C D F Brian Whitney ................ A B C D F 8th Judicial District David B. Woods ............ A B C D F Jolene C. Blair ............... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District Terence Gilmore ........... A B C D F Leslie J. Gerbracht ........ A B C D F Daniel J. Kaup ............... A B C D F 4th Judicial District Gregory M. Lammons ... A B C D F David A. Gilbert ............. A B C D F Stephen J. Schapanski . A B C D F Deborah J. Grohs .......... A B C D F 9th Judicial District Barney Iuppa ................. A B C D F Gail Nichols ................... A B C D F 1 ## Page 43 10th Judicial District 20th Judicial District No Grade No Grade Thomas B. Flesher ........ A B C D F Lael E. Montgomery ...... A B C D F Jill S. Mattoon ................ A B C D F 21st Judicial District Larry C. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Dick Gurley ................... A B C D F 11th Judicial District Valerie J. Robison ......... A B C D F Stephen A. Groome ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Sharon L. Hansen ......... A B C D F Martin A. Gonzales ........ A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F 13th Judicial District (None) 14th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a sheet Mary C. Hoak ................ A B C D F for comments you would like to make about any 15th Judicial District of these district Judges. Stanley A. Brinkley ........ A B C D F 16th Judicial District Michael A. Schiferl ........ A B C D F Thank You. 17th Judicial District John T. Bryan ................ A B C D F C. Scott Crabtree .......... A B C D F Katherine R. Delgado .... A B C D F Thomas R. Ensor .......... A B C D F F. Michael Goodbee ...... A B C D F Patrick T. Murphy .......... A B C D F C. Vincent Phelps, Jr. .... A B C D F Jill-Ellyn Straus .............. A B C D F 18th Judicial District Angela Arkin .................. A B C D F Richard B. Caschette .... A B C D F Timothy L. Fasing .......... A B C D F Jeffrey K. Holmes .......... A B C D F Carlos Armando Samour,Jr. A B C D F William B. Sylvester ...... A B C D F Elizabeth Ann Weishaupl A B C D F 19th Judicial District Julie C. Hoskins ............ A B C D F Daniel Maus .................. A B C D F Thomas J. Quammen .... A B C D F 2 ## Page 44 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 45 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 4
2004 cycle
- 2004 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2004 Judicial Performance Survey TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee SSttaannlleeyy AA.. BBrriinnkklleeyy ## Page 2 March 22, 2004 The Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley District Judge, 15th Judicial District Prowers County Courthouse 301 South Main, Suite 300 Lamar, Co. 81052 Dear Judge Brinkley: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2004 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 35,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 10,000 people responded—3,683 to the attorney survey and 6,330 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e as required by the recent rule changes) , each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Stanley A. Brinkley March 22, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.7 Overall Average 3.3 3.3 3.6 Q1. Overall Case 3.3 Management 3.3 3.6 Q2. Overall App & 3.2 Knowldge of Law 3.2 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.7 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.7 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.2 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 5 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.6 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.3 3.3 3.7 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.4 during trial 3.5 3.7 1b. Beginning court on time 3.4 3.4 3.5 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.7 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.3 according to schedule 3.3 3.4 1e. Assisting parties to reach 3 agreement 3 3.5 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.4 control over proceedings 3.4 3.6 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.1 motions 3.2 3.6 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.3 decision on the case after trial 3.4 3.6 1i. Setting reasonable 3.2 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 6 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.6 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.2 Law 3.2 3.4 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.2 3.7 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.3 3.8 2c. Issuing written findings of 3.1 fact and law 3.1 3.6 2d. Willing to reconsider error 2.9 in fact or law 2.9 3.5 2e. Having knowledge of 3.2 relevant substantive law 3.2 3.5 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.3 of procedure and evidence 3.3 3.6 2g. Being able to identify and 3.3 analyze relevant facts 3.3 2h. Issuing consistent 3.3 sentences when the 3.1 circumstances are similar 3.2 2i. Willing to make decision 3.4 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.3 3.6 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley Average Grade All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 7 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.5 3.5 3.8 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 3.8 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings 3.5 3.8 3c. Using understandable 3.6 language 3.6 3.8 3d. Providing written communications that are 3.3 clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley Average Grade All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 8 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.7 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.8 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.8 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.4 3.6 4c. Having empathy with the 3.2 parties involved 3.2 3.9 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.4 3.6 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.3 3.6 4f. Being consistent in his/her 3.3 behavior 3.3 4g. Conducting his/her 3.6 courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.3 3.6 4h. Giving all participants an 3.4 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.6 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.3 and rules 3.3 3.3 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 3.7 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.6 fairly 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley Average Grade All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 9 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.7 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.2 3.2 3.6 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.3 3.6 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.2 3.8 5c. Doing the necessary "homework" and being 3.2 prepared for his/her cases 3.2 5d. Being willing to handle 3.9 cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 complicatedand time consuming 3.3 3.6 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.3 matters 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 10 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Brinkley is toward the defense or prosecution? Stanley A. -0.2 Brinkley All District 0.6 Judges All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 11 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Brinkley's sentences? Stanley A. -0.6 Brinkley All District 0.3 Judges All Trial Judges 0.4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 12 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 85% 81% 80% 74%74% 70%70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 16% 15% 15%15% 14%14% 10% 7% 6%6% 6% 5%5%5% 4%4% 4%4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Brinkley Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 13 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 68% 51% 51% B 14% 25% 24% C 5% 7% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 14% 15% 17% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 14 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 77% 55% 54% B 14% 28% 29% C 9% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 15 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 48% 49% B 14% 30% 30% C 9% 10% 10% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 6% 6% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 16 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 76% 49% 50% B 14% 30% 30% C 10% 10% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 5% 6% 5% Average 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 17 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 35% 27% 25% B 25% 20% 18% C 11% 10% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 35% 35% 41% Average 3.4 3 3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 18 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 68% 58% 58% B 27% 27% 27% C 8% 8% D 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 1% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 19 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 37% 39% B 18% 27% 24% C 5% 12% 10% D 5% 4% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 23% 16% 21% Average 3.6 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 20 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 42% 44% B 22% 21% C 14% 8% 7% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 19% 23% 24% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 21 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 68% 45% 47% B 23% 30% 30% C 9% 11% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 8% 8% Average 3.6 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 22 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 59% 48% 49% B 27% 28% 27% C 9% 10% 10% D 5% 5% 5% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 6% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 23 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 50% 51% B 33% 27% 27% C 11% 10% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.7 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 24 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 32% 27% B 10% 20% 17% C 5% 10% 9% D 4% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 20% 32% 42% Average 3.8 3.1 3.1 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 25 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 33% 26% 26% B 19% 20% 20% C 10% 11% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 48% 34% 34% Average 3.6 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade B+ B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 26 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 52% 45% 46% B 48% 32% 31% C 12% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 27 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 64% 53% 52% B 27% 29% 29% C 9% 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 4% 5% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 28 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 68% 51% 51% B 23% 28% 28% C 9% 11% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 29 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 24% 18% 27% B 19% 13% 17% C 5% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 52% 62% 46% Average 3.3 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 30 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 47% 47% B 29% 22% 23% C 5% 8% 8% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 18% 17% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 31 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 62% 48% 48% B 14% 22% 22% C 10% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 19% 18% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 32 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 82% 65% 67% B 18% 24% 23% C 6% 6% D 2% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 33 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 86% 62% 64% B 9% 25% 23% C 5% 8% 7% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 34 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Using understandable language?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 82% 65% 67% B 18% 25% 24% C 5% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 35 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 3d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 77% 48% 47% B 14% 24% 24% C 5% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 5% 14% 14% Average 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 23 ## Page 36 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 77% 63% 63% B 23% 22% 23% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 24 ## Page 37 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 82% 63% 63% B 14% 20% 20% C 5% 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 25 ## Page 38 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 51% 51% B 18% 24% 24% C 9% 11% 11% D 4% 5% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 6% 6% Average 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 26 ## Page 39 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 86% 61% 62% B 14% 22% 21% C 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 27 ## Page 40 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 59% 58% B 18% 23% 23% C 5% 9% 9% D 5% 3% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 28 ## Page 41 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Being consistent in his/her behavior?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 64% 57% 58% B 23% 23% 23% C 9% 8% 9% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 29 ## Page 42 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 59% 59% B 18% 22% 23% C 5% 8% 9% D 5% 3% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 30 ## Page 43 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 63% 62% B 18% 23% 23% C 5% 7% 7% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 31 ## Page 44 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 68% 52% 53% B 23% 24% 24% C 9% 10% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 6% 6% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 32 ## Page 45 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 33% 58% 56% B 14% 16% 17% C 5% 4% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 5% 2% 1% No Grade 43% 20% 20% Average 3.3 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 33 ## Page 46 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 40% 45% B 23% 14% 15% C 3% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 23% 42% 33% Average 3.7 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 34 ## Page 47 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 64% 48% 47% B 23% 24% 25% C 9% 10% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 5% 13% 14% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 35 ## Page 48 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 64% 47% 48% B 32% 28% 28% C 5% 11% 11% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 4% 5% Average 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 36 ## Page 49 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for his/her cases?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 77% 47% 47% B 18% 27% 27% C 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 7% 9% Average 3.8 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 37 ## Page 50 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicatedand time consuming?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 82% 46% 47% B 14% 22% 22% C 8% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 5% 18% 17% Average 3.9 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 38 ## Page 51 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 36% 37% B 10% 17% 16% C 7% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 43% 37% 37% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 39 ## Page 52 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Brinkley is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 3% 4 5% 3% 3 6% 6% 2 7% 12% 12% 1 13% 13% 16% 53% 48% 49% -1 20% 5% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 1% -4 7% 3% 1% -5 2% 1% Average -0.2 0.6 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 40 ## Page 53 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Brinkley are? Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 2% 2% 4 2% 2% 3 5% 5% 2 8% 9% 9% 1 12% 12% 62% 55% 58% -1 8% 6% 5% -2 8% 4% 2% -3 8% 2% 2% -4 8% 3% 1% -5 1% 1% Average -0.6 0.3 0.4 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 41 ## Page 54 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 85% 74% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 15% 15% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 42 ## Page 55 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.4 3.3 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.3 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.3 3.6 Q5. Overall Application 3.3 of Law 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 56 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.3 3.6 1a. Giving proceedings a 3.4 sense of dignity 3.4 3.6 1b. Treating participants 3.4 politely and with respect 3.4 3.6 1c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.3 3.5 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley Average Grade All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 57 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.6 2a. Giving participants an 3.4 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.6 2b. Treating those involved 3.3 with the case without bias 3.2 3.6 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.3 represent themselves 3.3 3.6 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 case 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 58 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.6 Q3. Overall Communications 3.5 3.5 3.7 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.4 proceedings 3.4 3.6 3b. Using language that 3.5 everyone can understand 3.5 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so 3.5 everyone can hear 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley Average Grade All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 59 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.4 4a. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.2 3.6 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.7 4c. Setting reasonable 3.3 schedules for cases 3.3 3.6 4d. Being prepared for his or 3.4 her cases 3.4 3.5 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.3 little wasted time 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley All District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 60 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.6 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.3 3.2 3.5 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.2 3.5 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.3 outside pressure 3.2 3.6 5c. Being able to identify and 3.3 analyze relevant facts 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Stanley A. Brinkley Average Grade All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 61 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Brinkley is toward the defense or prosecution? Stanley A. 0.2 Brinkley All District 0.1 Judges All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 62 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Brinkley's sentences? Stanley A. -0.3 Brinkley All District -0.1 Judges All Trial Judges -0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 63 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 85% 80% 76% 75% 74% 70% 68% 67% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 11% 11% 11%11% 10% 10%10% 10% 9% 9%9% 10% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Brinkley Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 64 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 72% 62% 60% B 19% 23% 23% C 7% 7% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 65 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 78% 65% 63% B 13% 19% 19% C 6% 7% 8% D 1% 3% 4% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 66 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 75% 63% 61% B 14% 18% 18% C 4% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 4% Fail 2% 5% 5% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 67 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 68% 59% 56% B 18% 19% 20% C 6% 8% 9% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 4% 6% 6% No Grade 2% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 68 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 64% 62% B 15% 19% 20% C 6% 7% 7% D 2% 3% 4% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 69 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 72% 61% 60% B 15% 18% 18% C 5% 6% 7% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 2% 6% 7% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 70 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 50% 43% 45% B 10% 13% 14% C 1% 4% 5% D 3% 2% 3% Fail 1% 4% 5% No Grade 36% 34% 29% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 71 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 61% 59% B 15% 19% 19% C 6% 6% 7% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 5% 4% No Grade 5% 7% 7% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 72 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 75% 64% 64% B 17% 19% 19% C 6% 8% 8% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 73 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 69% 65% 64% B 23% 21% 21% C 6% 7% 8% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 74 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 76% 66% 66% B 18% 19% 20% C 4% 8% 7% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 75 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 57% 54% 52% B 32% 24% 25% C 6% 10% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 2% 5% 5% Average 3.4 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 76 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 65% 64% B 24% 20% 21% C 4% 6% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 77 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 53% 51% B 20% 20% 21% C 6% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 10% 13% 14% Average 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 78 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Being prepared for his or her cases?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 60% 58% B 17% 17% 19% C 2% 6% 7% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 5% 4% No Grade 6% 8% 9% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 79 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 56% 54% B 26% 22% 24% C 7% 9% 10% D 1% 4% 4% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 2% 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 80 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 55% 54% B 21% 20% 20% C 4% 8% 8% D 2% 3% 4% Fail 2% 5% 5% No Grade 7% 9% 9% Average 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 81 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 53% 50% B 12% 15% 16% C 7% 6% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 6% 6% No Grade 10% 18% 18% Average 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 82 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Brinkley on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 69% 58% 55% B 13% 17% 18% C 8% 7% 7% D 2% 3% 4% Fail 1% 7% 6% No Grade 8% 8% 9% Average 3.6 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 83 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Brinkley is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 2% 3% 4 1% 2% 2% 3 1% 2% 2% 2 4% 3% 3% 1 8% 6% 6% 71% 73% 70% -1 5% 4% 4% -2 1% 2% 3% -3 1% 2% 2% -4 1% 2% 2% -5 1% 2% 2% Average 0.2 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 84 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Brinkley are? Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 4% 4 1% 2% 3 4% 3% 3% 2 1% 2% 3% 1 1% 3% 4% 70% 65% 62% -1 7% 8% 7% -2 10% 6% 6% -3 4% 4% 5% -4 1% 2% 2% -5 2% 2% Average -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 85 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Brinkley be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Brinkley Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 85% 75% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 7% 11% 11% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 2% 4% 5% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 6% 10% 11% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 86 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2004. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in November 2004, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2004 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 87 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 719 394 7 69 9 60.6% Attorney For Defendant 2,219 1,040 17 218 24 52.0% Guardian ad Litem 131 79 0 10 1 65.3% Unknown Attorney Type 5,378 2,170 56 751 88 46.9% Attorney Total 8,447 3,683 80 1,048 122 49.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 3,111 916 55 672 3 37.6% Employee 1,739 976 18 224 0 64.4% Defendant 12,171 1,620 148 2,439 27 16.6% Plaintiff 3,617 881 66 500 11 28.3% Juror 4,488 1,632 117 511 15 41.0% Victim 552 83 11 101 2 18.4% Other 1,650 222 25 373 8 17.4% Non-attorney Total 27,328 6,330 440 4,820 66 28.1% Total 35,775 10,013 520 5,868 188 33.5% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2004 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 88 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2004, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2004 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 89 Judge Stanley A. Brinkley Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 6 3 0 1 0 60.0% Attorney For Defendant 21 13 0 4 0 76.5% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type 16 6 0 3 0 46.2% Sub Total: 43 22 0 8 0 62.9% Defendant 138 17 0 17 0 14.0% Plaintiff 64 16 1 7 1 28.1% Law Enforcement 20 7 0 5 0 46.7% Employee 18 14 1 0 0 77.8% Juror 95 49 5 7 0 55.7% Victim Other 5 1 0 1 0 25.0% Sub Total: 340 104 7 37 1 34.3% Grand Total: 383 126 7 45 1 37.3% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 90 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Attorney Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ 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 do not have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK/ 1. Case Management: A B C D F NA a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. [District only] Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Diligence: a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Continued on Back] 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 91 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge _ in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _ ? _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ 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 do not have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK/ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F NA 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 2. Fairness: a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Diligence: a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Application of Law: 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 6. [If you were in Judge _’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Other Side ## Page 93 7. [If you were in Judge _ ’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge _ as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what would you tell your friend about Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _? _ _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated.

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

2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2004 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026