Jaclyn Brown

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2022 retention cycle
Court of Appeals
Commission vote: 11 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 70.1% yes
1,344,611 yes · 574,223 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2022Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 11 – 0. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Brown has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals since June, 2019 and this is her first retention as a Court of Appeals judge. The Commission finds that her opinions are timely, clear and well-reasoned. At oral arguments, she is well-prepared, succinct in her questions and respectful. The Commission commends Judge Brown for her collegiality and collaboration among her colleagues. The Commission applauds her work as co-chair of the court’s Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity & Anti-Racism Committee, her focus on judicial training and well-being, and her active participation in several laudable projects in the bar associations. The Commission also recognizes her clear enthusiasm for her work on the bench. One survey question asked whether Judge Brown met judicial performance standards. 85% of attorneys and 90% of judges responded “yes” to that question. She received an overall score of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale. The Commission finds that Judge Brown is a valuable addition to the Court of Appeals. To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Brown, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. The Commission is concerned about Judge Brown overextending herself with too many professional commitments and encourages her to employ strategies to trim down such commitments. Judge Brown recognized the need to do this in her self-evaluation and interview. Judge Brown also recognized the need to improve her administrative skills especially in the areas of hiring, delegation and managing employees. The Commission encourages Judge Brown to learn from fellow judges and other professional resources to improve these skills. Judge Brown also expressed her plan to continue increasing her knowledge of criminal law.
2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Adams · Adams
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 72.8% yes
120,536 yes · 45,150 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) finds that Judge Jaclyn Brown MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Brown, was appointed in 2016 to be a district court judge in the 17th Judicial District. She previously worked on commercial and complex civil litigation at the Denver office of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP. Her areas of practice included real estate, construction, eminent domain, contractual disputes and insurance issues. Among other distinctions, she was recognized as a Denver Business Journal “Forty under 40” honoree and earned the title of the Denver Bar Association’s Young Lawyer of the Year (2013). The same year, as part of a team of pro-bono lawyers, she was named Lawyer of the Year by Law Week Colorado. Judge Brown is a graduate of the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis and did her undergraduate work at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Judge Brown thinks of herself as dedicated, hard-working, and fully invested in her work. “I care deeply about every case that comes before me and give each matter the time and attention it deserves.” The Commission based its “meets judicial performance standards” finding on a review of several of Judge Brown's legal opinions, a personal interview, multiple in-court observations, her self-evaluation, and survey response from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Brown. Among the survey questions was “based on your response to the previous question related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Brown meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 97% answered yes, meets performance standards and 3% answered no, does not meet performance standards. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 95% answered yes, meets performance standards and 5% answered no, does not meet performance standards. Judge Brown received a 100% “meets performance standards” rating from jurors. Judge Brown’s current docket is one-half domestic relations matters and one-half civil cases. Her survey results from attorneys on case management, application of the law, communications, diligence and demeanor ranged from 3.73 to 3.83 on a 4-point scale. A typical case-management comment from the survey states “Judge Brown has a practical, flexible and accommodating approach to scheduling, managing, and presiding over hearings. “She rules on procedural and substantive matters with all reasonable speed.” Judge Brown consistently received high scores on her legal knowledge, being able to identify and analyze relevant facts, basing her decisions on evidence and arguments, being fair and impartial to both sides of the case, and consistently applying laws and rules. Her ratings in these areas ranged from 3.70 to 3.74. She consistently received a rating of 3.7 or higher on all aspects of demeanor: Giving proceedings a sense of dignity; treating participants with respect; and conducting her courtroom in a neutral manner. She received a 3.73 average for her diligence, defined as using good judgment in relevant aspects of law and rules, doing homework when necessary, being prepared, and being willing to handle complicated and time-consuming cases.

Surveys & reports

2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney .10 Methodology and How to Read Results .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations .13 Methodology and How to Read Results .13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brown, 39 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 39 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.8 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Brown All Appellate Judges All Appellate Judge Brown Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.5 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 95% 94% 89% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3% 0% Judge Brown All Appellate Judges Judge Brown All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Judge Judge Appellate Appellate Brown Brown Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 89% 81% 95% 94% standards No, does not meet 0% 14% 0% 3% performance standards No opinion 11% 5% 5% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.9 General (Attorneys) 3.5 3.7 Writing (Attorneys) 3.3 3.8 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 Judge Brown All Appellate Judges All Judge Appellate Brown Judges General (Attorneys) 3.9 3.5 Writing (Attorneys) 3.7 3.3 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.8 3.7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 93 21% 19% 18 Judges 21 10% - 21 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brown Overall 3.9 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Appellate Judge Brown Overall Number of Responses Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.7 3.3 17 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.9 3.5 15 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.9 3.6 16 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.9 3.5 17 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.0 4.0 10 Being prepared for oral argument 3.7 3.6 13 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brown Overall 3.7 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Appellate Judges Judge Brown Overall Number of Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.6 3.4 13 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.6 3.3 13 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.8 3.6 15 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.8 3.5 12 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3.5 3.0 17 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need not 3.8 3.3 15 be decided 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brown Overall 3.8 Appellate Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Appellate Number of Brown Judges Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.8 3.7 21 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision 3.8 3.7 21 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.7 3.7 19 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.8 3.7 19 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.8 3.7 21 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.8 3.6 19 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.9 3.8 21 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.9 3.8 21 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brown, 39 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 39 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 10 ## Page 11 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 11 ## Page 12 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. All 192 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 17 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. A total of 85 responses were received for a response rate of 44%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2021. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 29 survey invitations sent. A total of 7 responses were received for a response rate of 24%. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on February 1st, 2021 and a reminder was sent on February 8th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2021. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on February 1st, 2021. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2021. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 444 93 0 18 19% Judges 221 21 0 21 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 14
- 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.5
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  85%
  106 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  90%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . 10 Methodology and How to Read Results . 10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brown, 63 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 63 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Brown All Appellate Judges All Appellate Judge Brown Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 94% 90% 85% 80% 77% 60% 40% 20% 15% 15% 9% 8% 2% 2% 3% 0% Judge Brown All Appellate Judges Judge Brown All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Judge Judge Appellate Appellate Brown Brown Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 85% 77% 90% 94% standards No, does not meet 15% 15% 8% 2% performance standards No opinion 0% 9% 2% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 General (Attorneys) 3.3 3.2 Writing (Attorneys) 3.1 3.6 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 Judge Brown All Appellate Judges All Judge Appellate Brown Judges General (Attorneys) 3.4 3.3 Writing (Attorneys) 3.2 3.1 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 3.7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 106 23% 20% 21 Judges 42 16% - 42 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brown Overall 3.4 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Appellate Judge Brown Overall Number of Responses Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.2 3.2 20 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.6 3.3 20 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.4 3.4 20 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.5 3.4 19 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.6 3.7 15 Being prepared for oral argument 3.4 3.4 19 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brown Overall 3.2 Appellate Judges Overall 3.1 Judge Brown Appellate Judges Number of Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.1 3.2 17 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.2 3.1 17 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.5 3.3 18 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.2 3.2 20 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3 2.9 20 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.4 3.1 18 not be decided 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brown Overall 3.6 Appellate Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Appellate Number of Brown Judges Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.7 3.7 41 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.6 3.7 41 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.6 3.8 33 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.7 3.7 37 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.6 3.6 40 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.5 3.6 38 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.7 3.7 40 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.8 3.8 37 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brown, 63 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 63 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 10 ## Page 11 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 942 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 11 ## Page 12 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2021. All 217 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 8 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2021. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 39 survey invitations sent. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 21st, 2022 and a reminder was sent on February 9th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 28th, 2022. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on February 6th , 2022 and a reminder was sent on February 11th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 28th, 2022. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 471 106 0 21 20% Judges 256 42 0 42 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 14
2018 cycle
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.8
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  96%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  95%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Jaclyn Casey Brown 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Appellate Judges.14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Results .15 Survey of Non Attorneys .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Performance Score.24 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown, 92 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 50 agreed they had worked with Judge Brown enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 50 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.80 3.77 3.88 3.96 3.62 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.8 3.77 3.88 3.96 3.62 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 96% 97% 95% 100% 80% 75% 60% 40% 25% 20% 4% 3% 5% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 96% 97% 95% 100% 75% standards No, does not meet performance 4% 3% 5% 0% 25% standards No opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.74 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.74 3.81 3.96 3.25 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.83 3.94 4.00 3.75 Diligence 3.73 3.87 3.89 3.70 Demeanor 3.82 3.83 3.94 3.56 Fairness N/A 3.96 4.00 3.83 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 176 0 57 32% 47% Total Non- 136 13 35 28% 43% Attorneys Staff 29 0 16 55% 56% Jurors 21 1 9 45% 0% Other Non- 86 12 10 14% 60% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brown, 57 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 30 agreed they had worked with Judge Brown enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 30 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 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brown on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.74 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.68 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 3.77 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.75 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 3.73 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Jaclyn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Casey Brown Promptly issuing a decision on the 19 1 1 -- 1 8 30 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 25 4 -- 1 -- -- 30 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 24 3 -- -- 1 2 30 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 24 4 2 -- -- -- 30 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brown on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.74 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 3.73 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 3.7 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.20 3.77 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 3.71 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 25 4 -- -- 1 -- 30 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 22 4 -- -- 1 3 30 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- -- -- -- -- -- similar Being fair and impartial to both 26 3 -- -- 1 -- 30 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 23 4 -- -- 1 1 29 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brown on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.83 Communications Overall Average 3.44 3.87 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 3.79 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 27 2 1 -- -- -- 30 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 24 4 1 -- -- 1 30 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brown on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.82 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 3.87 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 3.87 Treating participants with respect 3.44 3.73 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 27 2 1 -- -- -- 30 dignity Treating participants with respect 28 1 -- 1 -- -- 30 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 25 4 -- -- 1 -- 30 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brown on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.73 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.71 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.73 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.71 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 23 4 -- -- 1 2 30 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 25 4 -- -- 1 -- 30 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 20 3 -- -- 1 6 30 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Brown meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown Yes, meets performance 97% standards No, does not meet 3% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brown, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 2 agreed they had worked with Judge Brown enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 2 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 16 completed the survey. The response rate was 57% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16th, 2018. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 14 ## Page 17 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 8 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Overall performance as a judge 3.36 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Jaclyn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Casey Brown Overall performance as a 2 -- -- -- -- 13 15 judge *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown, 35 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 20 agreed they had worked with Judge Brown enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 20 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 16 ## Page 19 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 17 ## Page 20 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.83 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.79 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.84 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.84 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.84 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 16 2 1 -- -- -- 19 Treating participants with respect 16 3 -- -- -- -- 19 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 17 1 1 -- -- -- 19 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 17 1 1 -- -- -- 19 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.96 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.94 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 3.94 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 4 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 4 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 17 1 -- -- -- 1 19 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 17 1 -- -- -- 1 19 case without bias Treating fairly people who 14 -- -- -- -- 5 19 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 18 -- -- -- -- 1 19 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.94 Communications Overall Average 3.69 4 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 4 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.94 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 16 -- -- -- -- 3 19 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 17 -- -- -- -- 2 19 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 17 1 -- -- -- 1 19 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.87 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.83 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.89 for cases 3.61 3.83 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 3.89 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.89 wasted time 3.51 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 15 3 -- -- -- 1 19 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 17 -- 1 -- -- 1 19 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 15 3 -- -- -- 1 19 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 16 2 -- -- -- 1 19 Managing court proceedings so that there is 16 2 -- -- -- 1 19 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 0 1 2 3 4 3.81 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.78 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 4 outside pressure 3.56 3.83 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Brown All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 16 1 -- 1 -- 1 19 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 17 -- -- -- -- 2 19 pressure Being able to identify and 17 -- -- 1 -- 1 19 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Brown meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown Yes, meets performance 95% standards No, does not meet 5% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown 24

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

2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026