Verna L. Carpenter
Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
Meets Standards4 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 70.5% yes186,503 yes · 78,151 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Verna L. Carpenter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Carpenter is a county court judge; most of the matters she presides over are criminal with the balance being civil matters. Judge Carpenter is described as very knowledgeable about the law and a legal expert. She has high expectations and sets high standards for all those in her courtroom. She is described as knowledgeable, fair, efficient, and thorough. Courtroom observers commented that she was patient, especially with pro se defendants, asked insightful questions and dispatched cases efficiently. Survey respondents commented that she is a “good listener” who asks appropriate questions and as someone whose temperament has improved greatly. Comments included, “Judge Carpenter is firm, but accurate and impartial.” Her docket management is seen as a strength. She is described as an “excellent communicator.” The Commission is encouraged that Judge Carpenter continues to work on improving her demeanor. Judge Carpenter has led conversations in the Metro area to gain consistency on bond setting guidelines. She was nominated for a Judicial Excellence Award. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Carpenter, reviewed opinions Judge Carpenter authored, observed Judge Carpenter in court, reviewed the 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report from attorneys and non-attorneys appearing before Judge Carpenter, as well as received feedback from the Office of the State Public Defender and the First Judicial District Attorney's Office. Based on the Commission’s evaluation, Judge Carpenter demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories under review: case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 73.6% yes219,449 yes · 78,664 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Verna Lee Carpenter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Carpenter presides over misdemeanor, traffic, civil and small claims cases. Judge Carpenter views her court as a problem-solving court that seeks to address underlying problems contributing to certain offenses. Judge Carpenter ensures she is well-prepared for court by conducting research on legal issues presented in the cases before her docket. She is recognized for her directness, her strong grasp of the rules of evidence, as well as case law. Judge Carpenter is good at explaining the rationale for motions, sentences, and decisions. She is a role model in the way she interacts with and helps jurors. To assess Judge Carpenter’s performance, the Commission conducted an interview, read opinions she authored, observed her while on the bench, reviewed comments received from interested parties, and considered survey responses from those who have had experience with Judge Carpenter. From the survey, 75 percent of non-attorneys and 64 percent of attorneys agreed that Judge Carpenter meets performance standards. Judge Carpenter is performing extremely well in her role and is a performance leader among county court judges. According to the open case reports, Judge Carpenter is among the most efficient case managers which is particularly impressive given her maintenance of high scores in all the other performance categories. While survey respondents compliment Carpenter for careful and helpful explanations on complex legal matters, some attorney survey respondents indicated that Judge Carpenter can seem pointedly direct at times. Some respondents suggested Judge Carpenter could soften her demeanor in the court room. The children, community, and litigants of the First Judicial District are well served by having Judge Verna Carpenter on the bench.
- 2016 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 68.2% yes173,959 yes · 81,277 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Verna L. Carpenter BE RETAINED. Judge Carpenter received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Metropolitan State College, and obtained her juris doctorate degree from Creighton University School of Law. She was appointed to the Jefferson County Court in 2008. Prior to her appointment, Judge Carpenter was a Chief Deputy District Attorney for the City and County of Denver. She handles a mix of traffic, criminal and misdemeanor cases. She is actively involved in the community. She judges moot court competitions for the University of Denver and the University of Colorado law schools. Judge Carpenter teaches at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. She is also a member of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee and the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. Commission members conducted a personal interview with Judge Carpenter, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared in her courtroom. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Of those who completed the survey, 70% of attorneys recommended retaining her in office, and 88% of non-attorneys recommended retention. The Commission believes Judge Carpenter to be a hard-working, knowledgeable, dedicated public servant. She receives high scores in the areas of case management, diligence and communications. She is organized, prepared and takes the bench promptly as cases become ready. She sees herself as a team player, and has recently been selected by her peers to be the Presiding Judge of the County Court, which she has enjoyed tremendously. This has given her an opportunity to gain further knowledge of and work more closely with the Jefferson County legal community and to understand the administrative side of the court’s operations. Judge Carpenter is aware that she has consistently received lower than average scores in the area of demeanor. Many see her as condescending to parties in the courtroom. Judge Carpenter is very concerned about this rating and has taken great strides to improve. Most recently she has sought the advice of a senior judge, observed other colleagues on the bench, and taken courses to help her improve. The Commission believes Judge Carpenter wants to become a better judge and has taken appropriate efforts to do so. Judge Carpenter is a great asset to the Jefferson County bench and should be retained.
- 2012 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 68.5% yes159,856 yes · 73,483 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a unanimous vote that Judge Verna L. Carpenter BE RETAINED. Judge Carpenter received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Metropolitan State College of Denver and her law degree from Creighton University School of Law. She was appointed to the Jefferson County Court in 2008. Before her appointment to the court, Judge Carpenter was a Chief Deputy District Attorney for the City and County of Denver. She handles a mix of traffic, civil, and misdemeanor cases. Her community interests include serving as a volunteer with the elderly. She has been involved in numerous efforts to improve the legal community including judging moot court competitions, serving on the Criminal Justice Strategic Planning Committee and on the Youth Alcohol Intervention Committee. This evaluation is the first one for Judge Carpenter since she was appointed. Commission members found Judge Carpenter to be a bright, scholarly, and articulate judge. Judge Carpenter in discussions with the Commission recognizes that her sentencing policies, especially on repeat drunk driving defendants, may be more harsh than other county judges and that resulted in survey results that are lower than the average of the other county judges standing for retention. She is aware that she is perceived as prosecution oriented and will seek ways to correct that perception. However, her sentences on all cases are within the statutory limits. The Commission members were impressed with her sensitivity to these issues and to her commitment to her community. In observing her courtroom demeanor, the Commission members found her to be professional, respectful of all parties, and in control of her courtroom. The Commission considered responses to anonymous surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys who had been in Judge Carpenter’s courtroom, unannounced courtroom visitations by Commission members, a self-evaluation by Judge Carpenter, a personal interview with Judge Carpenter, and other information in reaching its recommendation regarding Judge Carpenter. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 56% recommended to retain, 35% not to retain, and 9% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 61% recommended to retain and 38% not to retain. These numbers are lower than the average for all county judges reviewed this year. The Commission would point out that the number of defense attorneys responding to surveys outnumbered district attorneys responding to surveys by almost nine-to-one. The Commission feels that this may have skewed numbers voting for retention in the negative. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 82% recommended to retain, 10% not to retain, and 9% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 89% recommended to retain and 11% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) Based upon its review of the information presented to it, the First Judicial District Performance Commission is pleased to recommend unanimously that Judge Verna L. Carpenter of the Jefferson County Court BE RETAINED.
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Verna L. Carpenter 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report County C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 3 Performance Scores . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor . .10 Diligence . .11 Fairness . .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Carpenter, 103 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 103 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.2 3 2 1 0 Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge Carpenter All County Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 85% 81% 78% 80% 60% 48% 43% 40% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 7% 5% 5% 0% Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge Carpenter All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Carpenter Carpenter Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 43% 81% 78% 85% standards No, does not meet 48% 15% 15% 10% performance standards No opinion 10% 5% 7% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.1 Case Management 3.4 2.9 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.6 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.0 Demeanor 3.5 2.9 Fairness 3.4 Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge All County Carpenter Judges Case Management 3.1 3.4 Application and 2.9 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.0 3.5 Fairness 2.9 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 41 18% 56% 23 Non-Attorneys 89 - - 80 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Carpenter received 1 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.2 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.1 41 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.2 61 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.2 51 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.9 3.5 2.7 3.0 60 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Overall 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 2.7 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 83 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.7 3.2 2.7 N/A 23 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 22 similar Consistently applying laws and 2.7 3.2 2.7 N/A 22 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.9 3.4 N/A 2.9 55 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.0 3.5 N/A 3.0 51 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.0 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.6 97 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 2.6 3.4 2.6 N/A 17 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 75 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 75 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Score 3.0 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 2.2 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.2 3.5 2.5 3.4 98 dignity Treating participants with 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.3 98 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 74 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 2.8 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.5 3.1 2.5 N/A 21 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.8 3.3 2.8 N/A 18 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 20 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 70 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 70 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 63 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 67 Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 71 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 1.6 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Carpenter Carpenter Carpenter Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 72 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.0 3.4 N/A 3.0 71 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 41 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 59 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 2.8 3.4 1.6 3.2 95 manner. Being fair and impartial 1.6 3.2 1.6 N/A 21 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Carpenter, 103 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 103 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, 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total, 7,151 surveys were completed with 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%. In addition to emailed invitations, attorneys could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 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 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. 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 and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 13 ## Page 14 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. To help reduce the 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 a list of all judges in their district or 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 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or f or judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 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 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 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 2022 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 14 ## Page 15 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 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 233 41 23 56% Staff - 9 9 - Others 487 43 34 79% Juror - 36 36 - Citizen Feedback - 1 1 Total Non-Attorneys - 89 80 - Total Respondents - 130 103 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 16 - 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ve rna L. Carpenter 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 13 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Carpenter, 65 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 65 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 586 18 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 18 Non-attorney email Invite 606 41 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 3 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 3 Total Non-Attorneys - 47 Total N/A 65 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Carpenter Overall Judge Carpenter Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.2 64 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 88% 66% 14 29 standards No, does not meet performance 13% 25% 2 11 standards No opinion 0% 9% 0 4 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Carpenter Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 Communications 3.3 Diligence 3.4 Demeanor 3.1 Fairness 3.0 Judge Carpenter Score Judge Number of Carpenter Responses Score Case Management 3.4 60 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 62 Communications 3.3 60 Diligence 3.4 58 Demeanor 3.1 59 Fairness 3.0 57 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.7 Non-Attorneys 3.3 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.7 3.9 3.7 42 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.5 3.8 3.4 58 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 3.6 3.9 3.5 49 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.2 3.3 3.2 55 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 2.9 2.9 3.0 36 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 2.9 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.1 3.8 2.9 62 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.5 3.5 N/A 18 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.3 3.3 N/A 14 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.6 3.6 N/A 18 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.4 3.4 N/A 16 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 3.4 3.4 N/A 17 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 2.8 N/A 2.8 40 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.1 N/A 3.1 41 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.3 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 3.2 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.3 3.5 3.2 60 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 2.9 2.9 N/A 17 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.2 N/A 11 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.6 3.6 N/A 17 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.2 N/A 3.2 43 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.5 N/A 3.5 41 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 3.0 N/A 3.0 40 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 3.0 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.2 3.6 3.0 59 Treats participants with respect. 3.1 3.5 3.0 59 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 3.5 3.5 N/A 17 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 3.4 3.4 N/A 17 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.7 3.7 N/A 17 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 3.0 N/A 3.0 41 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.6 Non-Attorneys 3.3 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.4 3.4 N/A 17 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 3.7 3.7 N/A 13 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.7 3.7 N/A 16 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.2 N/A 3.2 38 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.3 N/A 3.3 41 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.3 N/A 3.3 38 Is prepared for cases 3.3 N/A 3.3 40 Manages court proceedings so there is little 3.2 N/A 3.2 40 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.0 Attorneys 3.0 Non-Attorneys 3.0 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.0 N/A 3.0 42 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 2.9 N/A 2.9 38 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 2.8 N/A 2.8 31 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.2 N/A 3.2 38 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 2.7 2.7 N/A 15 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 2.8 2.8 N/A 15 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 2.8 2.8 N/A 14 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 3.7 3.7 N/A 15 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Carpenter, 65 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 65 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 13 ## Page 14 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 793 Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 14 ## Page 15 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 15 ## Page 16 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 16 ## Page 17 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 17 ## Page 18 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 18
- 2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Verna L. Carpenter 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Carpenter, 106 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 106 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.5 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge Carpenter All County Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 87% 88% 86% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 13% 10% 7% 7% 5% 4% 0% Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge Carpenter All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Carpenter Carpenter Judges Judges Yes, meets 87% 81% 88% 86% performance standards No, does not meet 7% 13% 13% 10% performance standards No opinion 7% 5% 0% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.5 Fairness 3.5 Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge All County Carpenter Judges Case 3.6 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.6 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 3.5 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 23 31% 74% 17 Non- 132 7% 67% 89 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Carpenter received 1 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.6 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.5 3.6 N/A 12 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 16 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 15 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 13 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.6 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.4 3.9 3.4 101 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 16 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 16 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 85 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 75 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.7 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 104 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 10 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 88 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 88 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.6 106 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.6 2.6 3.5 104 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.4 105 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 88 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.6 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 16 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 102 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.5 3.6 N/A 14 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 86 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 87 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 78 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 87 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Carpenter Attorneys Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Carpenter Carpenter Carpenter Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 88 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 89 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 61 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 86 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Carpenter, 106 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 106 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 14 ## Page 15 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 15 ## Page 16 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 75 23 0 17 74% Law Enforcement 399 41 11 22 54% Litigant 1683 46 333 30 65% Juror 141 41 8 35 85% Others 12 4 0 2 50% Total Non-Attorneys 2235 132 352 89 67% Total Respondents 2310 155 352 106 68% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 17 - 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.1judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend64%44 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend75%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Verna L. Carpenter 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Carpenter, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.1 3 2 1 0 Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge Carpenter All County Judges Overall Grade 3.1 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 83% 80% 75% 64% 60% 40% 24% 25% 20% 12% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge Carpenter All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Carpenter Carpenter Judges Judges Yes, meets 64% 83% 75% 94% performance standards No, does not meet 24% 13% 25% 4% performance standards No opinion 12% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.0 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.3 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 2.7 Demeanor 3.4 3.3 Fairness 3.8 Judge Carpenter All County Judges Judge All County Carpenter Judges Case 3.4 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.0 3.3 Law Communications 3.3 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 2.7 3.4 Fairness 3.3 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 44 27% 73% 32 Non- 4 57% 100% 4 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Carpenter received 1 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.4 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 24 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.8 33 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.8 26 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.2 31 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Overall 3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.6 31 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3 3.2 3 N/A 26 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 25 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.6 3.1 2.6 N/A 26 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3 3.2 3 N/A 26 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 5 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 5 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.2 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.8 30 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 21 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 5 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 5 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Score 2.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 2.6 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 2.9 3.5 2.7 3.6 30 dignity Treating participants with 2.7 3.5 2.6 3.2 30 respect Conducting his/her courtroom in 2.6 3.3 2.4 3.4 30 a neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 2.8 3.8 N/A 2.8 5 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Carpenter Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Carpenter Attorneys 3.3 Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge County Judge Carpenter Number of Carpenter Judges Carpenter Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 25 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 20 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 23 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 5 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 5 Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 5 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 5 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Carpenter Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Carpenter Attorneys Judge Carpenter Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Carpenter Carpenter Carpenter Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.6 3.8 N/A 3.6 5 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.0 3.8 N/A 3.0 5 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Carpenter, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% 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 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% 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 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. 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 2019 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 15 ## Page 16 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 165 44 0 32 73% Staff 6 4 0 4 - Others 1 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 7 4 0 4 100% Total Respondents 172 48 0 36 75% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 17
- 2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Verna L. Carpenter 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 1st Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Verna L. Carpenter Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility Court Section 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, CO 80401 Dear Judge Carpenter: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 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. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Verna L. Carpenter received an overall combined average grade of 3.20 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 2.89, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.51, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.42 [not shown below]. Judge Carpenter Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.20 2.89 3.51 Sample Size -- 114 218 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Carpenter’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Carpenter Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2011 3.23 3.02 41 3.44 135 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.22 2.82 73 3.61 83 Overall 3.20 2.89 114 3.51 218 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.81, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.27. 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 Carpenter’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Carpenter Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.87 130 60% 2.96 88 40% 3.81 3.27 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Verna L. Carpenter (Sample Size 114) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Sample Size = 114 A B C D Fail DK/NA Carpenter Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 39% 15% 8% 2% 2% 34% 3.33 3.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 53% 26% 17% 2% 2% 0% 3.27 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 44% 22% 12% 1% 2% 19% 3.29 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 35% 31% 13% 11% 5% 4% 2.84 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.18 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 48% 26% 14% 5% 7% 0% 3.04 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 37% 22% 19% 12% 8% 3% 2.70 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 28% 17% 10% 16% 11% 18% 2.44 3.00 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 25% 23% 4% 9% 7% 2.71 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.72 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 50% 27% 14% 5% 3% 1% 3.17 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 33% 16% 9% 1% 5% 37% 3.12 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.15 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 46% 25% 14% 8% 7% 0% 2.96 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 39% 14% 20% 13% 13% 0% 2.55 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 29% 17% 16% 21% 16% 0% 2.21 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 38% 27% 16% 6% 12% 2% 2.75 3.23 Overall Demeanor 2.62 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 38% 27% 17% 7% 12% 0% 2.72 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 42% 27% 13% 5% 6% 8% 3.03 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 43% 16% 13% 3% 8% 16% 3.01 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.92 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 2.89 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Carpenter Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 38% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 39% 30% Completely neutral 21% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 1% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 19% 53% Recommend retain 30% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 19% 9% Recommend not retain 14% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 17% 7% Total Retain 49% 77% Neither 19% 9% Total Not Retain 31% 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.89 Overall Average Grade 3.32 3.18 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.33 case after trial. 3.54 3.27 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.47 3.29 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.84 3.37 2.72 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.04 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.30 2.70 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 2.44 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.00 2.71 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.31 when circumstances are similar. 3.15 Q3. Overall Communication 3.43 3.17 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.52 the proceedings. 3.12 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Verna L. Carpenter 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.62 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 2.96 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.42 2.55 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.21 neutral manner. 3.18 2.75 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 2.92 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.72 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.03 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.01 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 38% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 39% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 21% Completely Neutral 50% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 1% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained or not retained in office? 19% Strongly recommend retain 53% 30% Recommend retain 24% 19% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Carpenter Judges* Total Retain 49% 77% 14% Neither 19% 9% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 31% 14% 17% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Verna L. Carpenter (Sample Size 218) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Sample Size = 218 A B C D Fail DK/NA Carpenter Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 18% 6% 2% 3% 1% 3.52 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 75% 11% 5% 3% 6% 0% 3.48 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 14% 6% 3% 5% 0% 3.44 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 12% 3% 6% 7% 2% 3.35 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.45 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 13% 5% 4% 5% 1% 3.46 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 71% 12% 5% 2% 7% 3% 3.42 3.45 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 8% 4% 3% 6% 27% 3.35 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 72% 11% 5% 4% 4% 5% 3.50 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.43 3.50 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 12% 6% 2% 3% 0% 3.57 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 6% 1% 0% 0% 3.69 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 17% 3% 1% 0% 0% 3.74 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 72% 19% 5% 0% 2% 2% 3.61 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 17% 5% 0% 0% 1% 3.69 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 65% 13% 5% 0% 3% 14% 3.58 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 68% 14% 6% 2% 2% 8% 3.56 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 72% 16% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.56 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.60 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 15% 6% 3% 6% 6% 3.36 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 57% 13% 6% 0% 6% 19% 3.39 3.45 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 14% 6% 3% 5% 7% 3.40 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.38 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.51 3.52 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Carpenter Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 19% 13% Competely neutral 77% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.44 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 21% 13% Competely neutral 76% 74% Lenient sentencing total 2% 13% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.71 0.10 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% 70% Recommend retain 9% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% 7% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 7% Total Retain 84% 84% Neither 6% 7% Total Not Retain 11% 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.51 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.45 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.52 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.48 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.44 manner. 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.35 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.43 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.50 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.46 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.42 case without bias. 3.45 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.35 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.50 their case. 3.54 3.67 Q3. Overall Communications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.57 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.69 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.74 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Verna L. Carpenter 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.60 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.61 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.69 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.58 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.56 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.56 little wasted time. 3.48 3.38 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.45 3.36 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.39 possible outside pressure. 3.45 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.40 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.44 Verna L. Carpenter 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.71 Verna L. Carpenter 0.10 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained or not retained in office? 75% Strongly recommend retain 70% 9% Recommend retain 14% 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 7% Judge Carpenter Judges* 3% Total Retain 84% 84% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 6% 7% Total Not Retain 11% 10% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 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 County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 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 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% 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 County Judges [Please Note: Due to insufficient survey responses, the non-attorney results for Judge Ruth M. Acheson are not included in this report.] a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 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 2015. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Carpenter is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 13 2 4 0 7 77.8% Defense Attorneys 319 137 76 0 106 43.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 3 0 3 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 336 139 83 0 114 45.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 486 269 158 11 48 14.6% Civil Litigant 199 128 54 4 13 9.0% Witness 63 37 6 5 15 26.3% Jurors 252 98 22 2 130 56.5% Employees, including Interpreters 11 4 0 0 7 63.6% Probation Officers 10 3 2 0 5 62.5% Total Non-attorneys 1021 539 242 22 218 28.0% Grand Total: 1357 678 325 22 332 32.2% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 1359 477 428 0 454 48.8% Defense Attorneys 5458 1988 1427 0 2043 50.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 17 5 4 0 8 61.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 199 66 48 0 85 56.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1109 325 393 0 391 54.6% Total Attorneys 8142 2861 2300 0 2981 51.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 180 101 60 12 7 5.8% Witness 3505 2059 941 134 371 14.5% Other 336 221 82 9 24 9.4% Law Enforcement 3358 2551 368 73 366 12.2% Defendant 15702 7544 6825 179 1154 13.0% Civil Litigant 4907 2614 1583 103 607 18.3% Witness 629 340 133 17 139 28.0% Other 9 8 0 0 1 11.1% Jurors 4706 2082 550 95 1979 47.6% Employees, including Interpreters 400 106 49 0 245 69.8% Probation Officers 332 92 82 0 158 63.2% Total Non-attorneys 34064 17718 10673 622 5051 21.6% Grand Total: 42206 20579 12973 622 8032 27.5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 2995 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 15% 5% 2% 1% 25% 3.54 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 21% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.47 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 51% 19% 7% 2% 2% 19% 3.43 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 23% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 18% 10% 6% 6% 22% 3.00 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 52% 23% 10% 3% 3% 10% 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 17% 7% 3% 2% 27% 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 18% 11% 6% 6% 1% 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 21% 10% 4% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 53% 22% 9% 3% 4% 9% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 16% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 53% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 77% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5051 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 17% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.54 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.48 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 16% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 14% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 14% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.45 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 11% 3% 2% 4% 26% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.50 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 14% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 18% 7% 3% 2% 4% 3.48 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.54 4d.Being prepared for cases. 70% 14% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.58 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 19% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% 12% 5% 2% 4% 18% 3.45 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 14% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 13% Average 0.1 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 84% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting the 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 the judge. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences 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 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. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 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 textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Verna L. Carpenter 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County 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 Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Verna L. Carpenter, 172 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 140 agreed they had worked with Judge Carpenter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 140 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.41 Attorneys 3.23 Total Non-Attorneys 3.60 Juror 3.83 Non-Attorney Other* 3.19 Table 1 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.41 3.23 3.60 3.83 3.19 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 79% Attorneys 70% Total Non-Attorneys 88% Juror 95% Non-Attorney Other 75% Table 2 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 79% 70% 88% 95% 75% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.46 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.16 3.54 3.80 3.10 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.38 3.70 3.90 3.35 Diligence 3.35 3.59 3.81 3.19 Demeanor 2.82 3.56 3.85 3.03 Fairness N/A 3.60 3.78 3.28 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 240 5 73 41% 25% Total Non- 995 189 67 9% 11% Attorneys Staff 7 0 3 43% 0% Jurors 278 0 43 16% 2% Other Non- 710 189 21 5% 25% 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 Verna L. Carpenter 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Carpenter, 97 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 73 agreed they had worked with Judge Carpenter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 73 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Verna L. Carpenter be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Total Retain 70% Neither 10% Total Not Retain 20% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 60% 46% 40% 24% 20% 12% 10% 8% 6% 6% 14% 8% 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 Carpenter All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 Carpenter 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 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.46 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.20 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.72 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.52 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.79 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 6 Case Management Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 73 Carpenter Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 59% 11% -- 1% -- 29% 3.79 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 66% 25% 7% 1% 1% -- 3.52 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 62% 21% 1% -- -- 16% 3.72 3.46 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 48% 27% 11% 7% 1% 5% 3.20 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.46 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 Carpenter 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 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.28 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.64 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.33 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.29 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.43 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 73 Carpenter Judges Being able to identify and analyze 60% 26% 8% 3% 1% 1% 3.43 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 55% 27% 11% 1% 4% 1% 3.29 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 49% 31% 11% 1% 1% 7% 3.33 3.32 similar Being fair and impartial to both 38% 26% 10% 14% 12% -- 2.64 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 53% 27% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.28 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 Carpenter 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 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.38 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.49 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 8 Communications Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 73 Carpenter Judges Making sure all participants 60% 26% 7% 7% -- -- 3.40 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 44% 16% 4% 1% 1% 33% 3.49 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 Carpenter 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 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 2.82 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.63 3.39 Treating participants with respect 2.69 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.15 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 9 Demeanor Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 73 Carpenter Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 55% 21% 15% 4% 5% -- 3.15 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 46% 15% 15% 10% 14% -- 2.69 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 33% 32% 14% 10% 12% -- 2.63 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 2.82 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 Carpenter on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.52 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.53 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.25 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 10 Diligence Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 72 Carpenter Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 49% 34% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.25 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 60% 25% 5% 3% -- 7% 3.53 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 52% 26% 5% 1% -- 15% 3.52 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.35 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Carpenter in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 54% 37% 37% 40% 28% 21% 20% 11% 4% 6% 1% 1% 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 Carpenter All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Verna L. Carpenter, 75 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 67 agreed they had worked with Judge Carpenter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 67 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 16 ## Page 19 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: 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 Verna L. Carpenter 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Total Retain 88% Neither 3% Total Not Retain 9% Figure 10 100% 80% 73% 71% 60% 40% 15% 16% 20% 9% 3% 5% 3% 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 Carpenter All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.49 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.58 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 12 Demeanor Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 67 Carpenter Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 81% 12% -- 3% 4% -- 3.61 3.61 Treating participants with respect 79% 12% 1% 3% 4% -- 3.58 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 82% 7% 1% -- 9% -- 3.54 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 79% 7% 4% 1% 7% -- 3.49 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.70 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.51 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 13 Fairness Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 67 Carpenter Judges Giving participants an opportunity 82% 9% 3% 3% 3% -- 3.64 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the 78% 10% 4% -- 7% -- 3.51 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 62% 3% 2% 2% 5% 27% 3.60 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 78% 9% 4% 1% 1% 6% 3.70 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.60 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.70 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 14 Communications Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 67 Carpenter Judges Making sure all participants 87% 4% 3% 4% 1% -- 3.70 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 84% 9% 3% 3% 1% -- 3.70 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 82% 10% 3% 4% -- -- 3.70 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.70 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.72 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.62 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.73 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.57 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.56 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 15 Diligence Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 67 Carpenter Judges Beginning court on time 69% 19% 1% 4% 1% 4% 3.56 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 75% 10% 1% 3% 4% 6% 3.57 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 84% 10% -- 1% 3% 1% 3.73 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 72% 10% 3% -- 4% 10% 3.62 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 81% 12% 1% -- 3% 3% 3.72 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.54 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.52 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Carpenter Table 16 Application of Law Judge Verna L. Carpenter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 64 Carpenter Judges Giving reasons for rulings 69% 13% 3% 1% 3% 10% 3.60 3.56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 58% 10% 4% -- 4% 22% 3.52 3.54 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 72% 12% 1% 1% 6% 7% 3.53 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.54 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Carpenter is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Carpenter is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 79% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 6% 4% 7% 5% 2% 3% 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 Carpenter All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Carpenter are. If you feel Judge Carpenter generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 83% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 2% 2% 6% 5% 4% 2% 6% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Carpenter All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Verna L. Carpenter 25
- 2012 cycle
- 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee VVeerrnnaa LL.. CCaarrppeenntteerr 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1st Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Verna L. Carpenter Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility Court Section 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, CO 80401 Dear Judge Carpenter: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two 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 non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by 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 two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of 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 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Verna L. Carpenter May 6, 2011 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 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 bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, county judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.45--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.56, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 2.71, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.63, Judge Verna L. Carpenter’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.17. Judge Carpenter Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.17 2.71 3.63 Sample Size - 68 202 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Carpenter from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Carpenter’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Carpenter Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 3.13 2.70 25 3.55 120 2010 3.23 2.71 43 3.74 82 Overall 3.17 2.71 68 3.63 202 Table 2 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 county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 54%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. 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 1 ## Page 5 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 Carpenter’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2007 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges. Judge Carpenter Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2007 % % 3.82 3.30 2008 % % 3.82 3.26 2009 3.87 82 68% 2.87 38 32% 3.83 3.22 2010 3.89 68 83% 2.98 14 17% 3.85 3.25 All Yrs. 3.88 150 74% 2.90 52 26% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Carpenter’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVeerrnnaa LL.. CCaarrppeenntteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6688)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Sample Size = 68 A B C D Fail DK/NA Carpenter Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 29% 12% 6% 0% 1% 51% 3.39 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 46% 32% 15% 1% 1% 4% 3.25 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 26% 29% 7% 0% 0% 37% 3.30 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 29% 28% 16% 7% 7% 12% 2.73 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.17 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 34% 28% 16% 13% 4% 4% 2.77 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 28% 22% 22% 9% 13% 6% 2.45 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 15% 15% 13% 12% 13% 32% 2.09 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 27% 20% 17% 7% 15% 15% 2.43 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.44 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 43% 28% 16% 10% 1% 1% 3.01 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 18% 12% 13% 7% 1% 49% 2.71 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 2.86 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 37% 26% 24% 6% 7% 0% 2.79 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 35% 21% 16% 16% 12% 0% 2.51 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 28% 15% 12% 22% 22% 1% 2.04 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 26% 18% 18% 18% 9% 12% 2.40 3.27 Overall Demeanor 2.44 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 24% 22% 22% 18% 7% 7% 2.40 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 32% 19% 16% 7% 1% 24% 2.96 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 28% 24% 16% 6% 3% 24% 2.88 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.75 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 2.71 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Carpenter Judges Sample Size = 68 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 45% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 32% 28% Completely neutral 18% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 5% 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 33% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 25% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 21% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 21% 7% Total Retain 58% 88% Total Not Retain 42% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 29% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 22% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 10% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 19% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 19% 6% Total Retain 51% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 10% 5% Total Not Retain 38% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.71 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.17 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.39 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.25 proceedings. 3.44 3.30 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.73 3.39 2.44 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.77 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.45 3.16 2.09 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.43 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 2.86 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.01 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.71 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges Judge Verna L. Carpenter 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.44 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 2.79 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 2.51 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.04 in a neutral manner. 3.26 2.40 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 2.75 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.40 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.96 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.88 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 45% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 32% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 18% Completely Neutral 50% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 5% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 33% Strongly recommend retain 71% 25% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All Cnty Judge Carpenter Judges 21% Total Retain 58% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 42% 13% 6% 21% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 29% Strongly recommend retain 68% 22% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty 10% Judge Carpenter Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 51% 84% Undecided or DK 10% 5% 19% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 38% 12% 6% 19% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVeerrnnaa LL.. CCaarrppeenntteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 220022)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Sample Size = 202 A B C D Fail DK/NA Carpenter Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 76% 14% 6% 1% 2% 0% 3.63 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 10% 2% 2% 4% 0% 3.62 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 11% 3% 4% 3% 1% 3.61 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 76% 10% 2% 3% 6% 2% 3.52 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.60 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 10% 3% 4% 3% 1% 3.59 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 1% 2% 6% 2% 3.56 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 8% 3% 1% 4% 34% 3.55 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 77% 12% 1% 3% 4% 4% 3.61 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.58 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 83% 9% 3% 1% 3% 0% 3.70 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 83% 10% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3.76 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 86% 11% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.86 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.77 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 76% 15% 4% 4% 1% 2% 3.63 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 12% 3% 3% 1% 1% 3.73 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 13% 3% 1% 2% 17% 3.58 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 2% 2% 2% 7% 3.68 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 78% 14% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3.70 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 12% 3% 3% 4% 8% 3.53 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 11% 0% 3% 5% 22% 3.54 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 70% 11% 1% 3% 6% 10% 3.53 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.53 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Carpenter Judges Sample Size = 202 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% 12% Competely neutral 82% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.38 0.12 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 17% 12% Competely neutral 82% 77% Lenient sentencing total 2% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.55 0.06 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 89% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 2% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 91% 92% Total Not Retain 9% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 2% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 5% Total Retain 84% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 8% Total Not Retain 9% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.63 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.60 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.63 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.62 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.61 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.52 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.58 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.59 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.56 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.55 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.61 or her case. 3.59 3.77 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.70 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.76 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.86 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges Judge Verna L. Carpenter 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.63 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.73 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.58 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.68 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.70 little wasted time. 3.50 3.53 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.53 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.54 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.53 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.38 Verna L. Carpenter 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.55 Verna L. Carpenter 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 2% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% All Cnty Judge Carpenter Judges Total Retain 91% 92% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 9% 8% 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 82% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 2% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 8% All Cnty Undecided 8% Judge Carpenter Judges Total Retain 84% 85% 3% Undecided 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 9% 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Verna L. Carpenter All County Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding 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 courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. 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. 16 ## Page 20 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, and going forward, 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 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, 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 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 survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim 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 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 17 ## Page 21 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 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 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 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. 18 ## Page 22 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 (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. 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. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 II 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. 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. Since in 2010, 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 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 survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 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 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 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. 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 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 21 ## Page 25 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. 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 Carpenter 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. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Verna L. Carpenter 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 6 1 0 0 5 83.3% Defense Attorneys 250 187 1 0 62 24.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 4 3 0 0 1 25.0% Total Attorneys 261 192 1 0 68 26.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Defendant 347 222 85 6 34 13.0% Civil Litigant 81 48 25 0 8 14.3% Witness 52 37 6 1 7 15.2% Jurors 338 159 20 8 150 47.2% Employees 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 822 466 137 15 202 29.5% Grand Total: 1083 658 138 15 270 28.6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 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. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial 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. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 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 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 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 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 - 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee VVeerrnnaa LL.. CCaarrppeenntteerr 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1st Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Verna L. Carpenter Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility Court Section Golden, CO 80401 Dear Judge Carpenter: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 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. Verna L. Carpenter March 26, 2012 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, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Verna L. Carpenter received an overall combined average grade of 3.20 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 2.84, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.55, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.45 [not shown below]. Judge Carpenter Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.20 2.84 3.55 Sample Size - 109 337 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (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 Carpenter’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Carpenter Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 2009 3.13 2.70 25 3.55 120 2010 3.23 2.71 43 3.74 82 2011 3.23 3.02 41 3.44 135 Overall 3.20 2.84 109 3.55 337 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.85, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.29. 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 Carpenter’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Carpenter Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Carpenter Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.87 219 65% 2.96 118 35% 3.85 3.29 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVeerrnnaa LL.. CCaarrppeenntteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110099)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Sample Size = 109 A B C D Fail DK/NA Carpenter Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 31% 15% 6% 1% 1% 47% 3.40 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 50% 30% 16% 1% 1% 3% 3.30 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 31% 27% 9% 0% 0% 33% 3.33 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 30% 30% 15% 9% 6% 10% 2.79 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.21 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 39% 28% 17% 11% 4% 3% 2.89 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 31% 22% 22% 10% 9% 6% 2.59 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 20% 15% 10% 16% 12% 28% 2.22 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 29% 23% 16% 6% 12% 13% 2.58 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.57 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 48% 25% 17% 8% 1% 2% 3.12 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 24% 12% 10% 5% 1% 49% 3.04 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.08 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 44% 24% 18% 7% 6% 0% 2.92 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 39% 17% 17% 16% 11% 0% 2.57 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 30% 16% 14% 20% 19% 1% 2.18 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 34% 19% 15% 14% 9% 9% 2.61 3.23 Overall Demeanor 2.57 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 30% 25% 18% 14% 8% 5% 2.58 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 37% 21% 15% 7% 1% 19% 3.06 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 34% 18% 14% 4% 4% 27% 3.03 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.89 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 2.84 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Carpenter Retention Sample Size = 109 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 41% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 35% 30% Completely neutral 21% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 3% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 41% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 20% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 16% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 22% 7% Total Retain 61% 86% Total Not Retain 38% 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 38% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 18% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 15% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 20% 7% Total Retain 56% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 5% Total Not Retain 35% 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.84 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.21 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.40 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.30 proceedings. 3.44 3.33 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.79 3.40 2.57 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 2.89 relevant facts. 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.59 3.15 2.22 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 2.58 when circumstances are similar. 3.28 3.08 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.12 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.04 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.31 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Verna L. Carpenter All County Retention Judges Judge Verna L. Carpenter 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.57 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.29 2.92 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 2.57 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.36 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.18 in a neutral manner. 3.19 2.61 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 2.89 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.28 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.58 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.06 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.03 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 41% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 35% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 21% Completely Neutral 49% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 3% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Verna L. Carpenter All County Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 41% Strongly recommend retain 70% 20% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Retention Judge Carpenter Judges 16% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 61% 86% 7% Total Not Retain 38% 14% 22% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 38% Strongly recommend retain 66% 18% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Including Und/DK Respondents 9% Undecided or DK All Cnty 5% Retention Judge Carpenter Judges 15% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 56% 81% 6% Undecided or DK 9% 5% Total Not Retain 35% 13% 20% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Verna L. Carpenter All County Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVeerrnnaa LL.. CCaarrppeenntteerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 377)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Sample Size = 337 A B C D Fail DK/NA Carpenter Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 12% 4% 3% 4% 0% 3.53 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 75% 11% 5% 3% 5% 1% 3.51 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 12% 3% 5% 7% 3% 3.40 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.51 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 11% 5% 4% 4% 1% 3.51 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 12% 3% 2% 7% 3% 3.47 3.53 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 8% 4% 2% 4% 32% 3.43 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 12% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3.53 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.49 3.57 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 12% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 13% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3.73 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 15% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.81 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.72 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 73% 17% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3.59 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 79% 14% 4% 2% 0% 1% 3.71 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 13% 4% 1% 3% 16% 3.55 3.59 4d. Being prepared for cases. 69% 14% 5% 2% 2% 8% 3.58 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 74% 16% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3.63 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 14% 5% 3% 5% 7% 3.43 3.51 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 12% 2% 2% 5% 21% 3.45 3.53 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 13% 3% 3% 5% 8% 3.45 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.44 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 3.58 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Verna L. Carpenter Verna L. All County Carpenter Retention Sample Size = 337 Judges 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 20% 12% Competely neutral 77% 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.47 0.15 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 20% 12% Competely neutral 78% 78% Lenient sentencing total 3% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.63 0.14 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/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 84% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 5% Total Retain 89% 92% Total Not Retain 11% 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 7% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 5% Total Retain 82% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 8% Total Not Retain 10% 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.55 Overall Average Grade 3.58 3.51 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.58 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.53 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.51 manner. 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.40 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.48 3.49 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.57 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.51 heard. 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.47 case without bias. 3.53 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.43 themselves. 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.53 or her case. 3.60 3.72 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.62 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.73 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.81 can hear what's being said. 3.71 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Verna L. Carpenter All County Retention Judges Judge Verna L. Carpenter 12 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.61 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.59 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.71 proceedings. 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.55 3.59 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.58 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.63 little wasted time. 3.52 3.44 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.52 3.43 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.51 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.45 possible outside pressure. 3.53 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.45 relevant facts. 3.52 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.47 Verna L. Carpenter 0.15 All County Retention 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 0.63 Verna L. Carpenter 0.14 All County Retention 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. Verna L. Carpenter All County Retention Judges 13 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Carpenter be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 84% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 8% All Cnty Retention 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Carpenter Judges 3% Total Retain 89% 92% Total Not Retain 11% 8% 8% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 9% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 8% All Cnty Retention 3% Judge Carpenter Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 82% 84% 2% Undecided 9% 8% 7% Total Not Retain 10% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Verna L. Carpenter All County Retention Judges 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding 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. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process: Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention). The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an 16 ## Page 20 example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 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. 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/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The 17 ## Page 21 percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/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 Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. 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. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process: Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. 18 ## Page 22 As stated above, court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 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/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 19 ## Page 23 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/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 Trial 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. 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 Carpenter is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Verna L. Carpenter Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 19 3 4 0 12 80.0% Defense Attorneys 371 245 30 0 96 28.2% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 5 3 1 0 1 25.0% Total Attorneys 396 252 35 0 109 30.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 643 378 178 17 70 15.1% Civil Litigant 130 81 38 0 11 12.0% Witness 115 75 12 6 22 21.4% Jurors 470 210 33 8 219 50.1% Employees, including Interpreters 14 4 1 0 9 69.2% Probation Officers 11 3 2 0 6 66.7% Total Non-attorneys 1383 751 264 31 337 30.1% Grand Total: 1779 1003 299 31 446 30.1% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2049 1103 289 0 657 37.3% Defense Attorneys 8880 5065 774 0 3041 37.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 12 7 1 0 4 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 441 266 30 0 145 35.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1346 701 191 0 454 39.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 24 8 7 1 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 12752 7150 1292 1 4309 37.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 277 159 90 15 13 7.0% Witness 4435 2510 1368 182 375 12.2% Other 549 334 156 20 39 9.9% Law Enforcement 3638 2574 457 92 515 16.2% Defendant 24165 11842 9981 329 2013 14.2% Civil Litigant 4982 2497 1744 118 623 19.2% Witness 1544 856 331 44 313 25.8% Other 78 50 20 2 6 10.3% Jurors 11310 5027 1133 268 4882 48.0% Employees, including Interpreters 666 182 95 12 377 66.0% Probation Officers 415 109 97 5 204 64.2% Total Non-attorneys 52059 26140 15472 1087 9360 25.6% Grand Total: 64811 33290 16764 1088 13669 28.4% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4309 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 17% 5% 1% 1% 25% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.41 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 5% 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 24% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 12% 6% 4% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 18% 10% 6% 5% 23% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 17% 7% 3% 2% 30% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 17% 9% 4% 4% 1% 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 20% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 22% 9% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 16% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4309 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 66% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 81% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 9360 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.56 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.60 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.53 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.53 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.57 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 66% 20% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.49 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.69 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 4% 2% 2% 13% 3.59 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 17% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.51 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 12% 4% 2% 3% 18% 3.53 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 9360 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 12% Competely neutral 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.14 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 84% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 92% Total Not Retain 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% Somewhat recommend retain 7% Undecided or Don't Know 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% Total Not Retain 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 31 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 32 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. Makings 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 33 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 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 34 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 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 the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 35 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
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026