← All judges

Nathan B. Coats

Supreme Court

Meets Standards(Retain)2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2012 retention cycle
    Supreme Court
    Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 71.4% yes
    1,399,485 yes · 560,766 no50% needed to retain
    Retention 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 State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Justice Nathan B. Coats BE RETAINED. Justice Coats was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2000. He received a B.A. in Economics from the University of Colorado in 1971 and his law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1977. Justice Coats was in private law practice from 1977 to 1978, served in the Appellate Section of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office from 1978 to1986, and was the Chief Appellate District Attorney for the Second Judicial District from 1986 to 2000. Before his appointment, Justice Coats served on many Supreme Court committees, including those addressing criminal, civil, appellate, and evidentiary rules. While Justice Coats limits his involvement in civic and community activities, he has oversight responsibilities for many Supreme Court committees, including Criminal Jury Instructions, Rules of Evidence, Rules of Professional Responsibility, and Attorney Regulation, as well as the Board of Law Examiners. Attorneys who responded to survey questions indicate that Justice Coats’ performance was strong in the area of being courteous towards attorneys. The attorneys indicated that his performance was somewhat weak in the areas of making reasoned decisions based on the law and the facts and being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. A number of attorneys in their comments expressed the view that Justice Coats is biased in favor of the prosecution in criminal cases. Several attorneys described Justice Coats as highly intelligent, while others commented that his opinions on occasion can be obscure. Some attorneys also expressed concern that his dissenting opinions are disrespectful to the justices writing majority opinions. The judges surveyed indicate that Justice Coats is strong in all areas, including writing opinions that are clear and that adequately explain the basis of the court’s decision. A number of judges commented that Justice Coats is bright and writes clear and thoughtful opinions. Some judges, however, expressed concern in their comments about the harsh tone of some dissenting opinions, and the Commission concurs in that concern. The Commission observed that Justice Coats has a respectful demeanor during oral arguments. The Commission reviewed a number of opinions written by Justice Coats and found that, on occasion, his opinions are so highly analytical that they can be somewhat difficult to follow. Overall, however, his opinions are generally well reasoned and reflect a high intelligence. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 70% recommended to retain, 24% not to retain, and 6% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 75% recommended to retain and 25% not to retain. Of all judges surveyed, 94% recommended to retain, 1% not to retain, and 5% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 99% recommended to retain and 1% not to retain.
  • 2002 retention cycle
    Supreme Court
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 74.3% yes
    828,622 yes · 286,961 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Justice Nathan B. Coats BE RETAINED. Justice Coats was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in May 2000. Prior to his appointment to the high court, Justice Coats was in a private law practice (1977-1978), served in the Appellate Section of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office (1978-1986), and was the Chief Appellate District Attorney for the Second Judicial District (1986-2000). Justice Coats has served on many Supreme Court committees, including the Criminal Rules, Appellate Rules, Rules of Evidence and Jury Reform committees. Although some surveyed attorneys believe that Justice Coats’ opinions are "prosecution oriented," both judges and attorneys ranked Justice Coats as a "B+" in being fair and impartial to both sides of the case. Justice Coats assured the Commission that he recognizes this perceived bias in criminal cases and strives to overcome it. He said he personally evaluates cases where such concerns might be raised and seeks feedback from his fellow justices about his impartiality. Justice Coats acknowledged that he had limited experience in civil and family law when he was appointed to the Court. He stated that he does substantial background research in these areas, including soliciting the views of colleagues on the court who have special expertise. Some commissioners were concerned that the sharp wording of a few of Justice Coats’ dissents could undermine collegiality on the court. Additionally, the Commission suggests that Justice Coats expand his community involvement to ensure that he maintains the broad perspective necessary for a Supreme Court member. Justice Coats received high marks from attorneys and trial judges in the categories of courtesy and treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. Support for retention of Justice Coats was solid among both judges and attorneys, with 84% of judges and 87% of attorneys favoring retention. The Commission unanimously recommends his retention.

Surveys & reports

  • 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 NNaatthhaann BB.. CCooaattss 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Supreme Court ## Page 2 May 18th, 2011 The Honorable Nathan B. Coats Colorado Supreme Court 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Justice Coats: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases before the Supreme Court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the survey, and a breakout of results by year since 2005 or when you were sworn in, whichever is most recent. 2. The numerical results of the survey 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 questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The third section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides copies of the questions that were used for the survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Justice Nathan B. Coats an overall average grade of 3.20. The average attorney grade for all Supreme Court Justices was 3.28. The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through the first quarter of 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Justice Coats’s overall average grades from attorneys for each of these years. Justice Coats Average Attorney Grades by Year All SC Justices Excluding Justice Coats Justice Coats Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Size Score Size 2005 3.64 6 3.36 60 2006 3.32 27 3.29 139 2007 3.20 35 3.38 233 2008 3.24 41 3.30 236 2009 3.10 52 3.28 287 2010 3.07 18 3.10 95 All Years 3.20 179 3.29 1,050 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed from 2005 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Justices who were appointed after 2005 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee NNaatthhaann BB.. CCooaattss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 117799)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Justice Nathan B. Coats All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 179 Excluding A B C D Fail DK/NA Justice Coats Justice Coats Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 47% 21% 11% 6% 10% 4% 2.93 3.18 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 64% 17% 9% 1% 4% 6% 3.45 3.39 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 63% 11% 6% 3% 4% 14% 3.45 3.57 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 70% 16% 6% 1% 2% 6% 3.61 3.48 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 53% 4% 4% 1% 2% 37% 3.68 3.78 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 59% 19% 7% 2% 2% 11% 3.47 3.43 Question 2 Average Grade 3.43 3.47 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 25% 13% 8% 6% 0% 3.01 3.15 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 50% 20% 15% 9% 6% 1% 3.01 3.12 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 51% 20% 10% 2% 3% 15% 3.34 3.34 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 48% 15% 15% 6% 9% 6% 2.93 3.29 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 46% 15% 13% 15% 11% 0% 2.71 2.87 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 44% 15% 15% 6% 10% 9% 2.85 2.93 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 2.98 3.12 Overall Average Grade: 3.20 3.29 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Justice Nathan B. Coats All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 179 Excluding Justice Coats Justice Coats 6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Coats be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 59% 63% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 10% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 15% 10% Total Retain 75% 80% Total Not Retain 25% 19% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 55% 59% Somewhat recommend retain 15% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 7% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 9% Total Retain 70% 75% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 7% Total Not Retain 23% 18% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Justice Nathan B. Coats Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.20 Overall average grade 3.29 3.43 Question 2 average grade 3.47 2.93 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.18 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.45 answer questions. 3.39 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.45 economic status. 3.57 3.61 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.48 3.68 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.78 3.47 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.43 2.98 Question 3 average grade 3.12 3.01 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.15 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.01 basis of the Court's decision. 3.12 3.34 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.34 2.93 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.29 2.71 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.87 2.85 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2.93 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Coats All Supreme Court Justices Excluding Justice Coats 4 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 8 Justice Nathan B. Coats Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Coats be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 59% Strongly recommend retain 63% 16% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All SC Justices Except Justice 10% Justice Coats Coats Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 75% 80% 9% Total Not Retain 25% 19% 15% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 55% Strongly recommend retain 59% 15% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All SC Justices 7% Except Justice Undecided or Don't Know 7% Justice Coats Coats Total Retain 70% 75% Undecided or DK 7% 7% 9% Total Not Retain 23% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Coats All Supreme Court Justices Excluding Justice Coats 5 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and a similar list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. These lists included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys‟ offices. All attorneys from the Supreme Court opinions list and the Court of Appeals opinions list were assigned to evaluate justices or judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the justice. 4. If at this point there were still several justices or judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the justice or judge with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still several justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, he or she was either randomly assigned to one of them, or assigned to the justice or judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes. 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 second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 7 ## Page 11 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 seven Supreme Court justices or COA judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 5 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to seven justices or 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. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. The list of seven justices or judges could include both justices and judges. If an attorney had more than seven possible justices or judges he or she could potentially evaluate, Supreme Court justices were assigned to that attorney first. 4. If there were more than seven justices or judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the justices or judges with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still more than seven justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, justices or judges were either randomly assigned to available list slots or were assigned to the justices or judges with the smallest sample sizes. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney would be asked to evaluate all seven justices if the case was heard by the Supreme Court, and the full three- judge panel if the case was heard by the Court of Appeals—not just the justices or judges who had written the opinion, concurrences or dissents. Because some of the survey questions refer specifically to the justice‟s or judge‟s legal writing, a question was added to the questionnaire asking “Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about Justice/Judge„s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them?” If the respondent answered “No” or “Don‟t Know” to this question he or she was not asked about the justice‟s or judge‟s writings. A copy of the list of the Attorney Regarding Appellate Judges questions is reprinted in the last section of this report. In addition to attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, COA staff attorneys were also surveyed in 2010. 8 ## Page 12 The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through March 2011 for those questions that have been consistently asked of attorneys during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice‟s or judge‟s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge‟s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 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. 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 justice‟s or judge‟s strengths and what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the justice or judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. 9 ## Page 13 d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 Supreme Court justices, excluding the report-justice, and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all seven justices 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 Supreme Court justices, excluding the report-justice. 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 Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the justice‟s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 22.0% for Supreme Court justices and 17.4% for Court of Appeals. 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. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Justice Coats is shown below. Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable Evaluations Rate Justice Coats 888 704 5 179 20.3% All Supreme Court 5,650 4,352 63 1,229 22.0% Justices All Appellate Judges 25,254 20,265 358 4,588 18.4% (SC and COA) 10 ## Page 14 Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated. From 2005 to 2008 a total of 1,963 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys regarding appellate justices and judges. Nine hundred and thirty (930), or 47.4%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Correspondingly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 6,681 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey regarding appellate justices and judges, of which 22.5% (1500 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a justice or judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 2.4 judges.1 1 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 justices and judges who are active at this writing. 11 ## Page 15 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 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges nor the District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges is 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 or justice 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. 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 1229 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 54% 21% 11% 6% 6% 3% 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 59% 21% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.40 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 65% 11% 5% 2% 3% 14% 3.56 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 65% 19% 7% 2% 2% 5% 3.50 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 56% 4% 3% 1% 1% 35% 3.76 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 58% 19% 7% 2% 2% 10% 3.44 Question 2 Average Grade 3.47 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 49% 27% 14% 7% 3% 1% 3.13 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 49% 26% 13% 7% 4% 1% 3.10 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 51% 25% 9% 2% 2% 10% 3.34 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 54% 18% 11% 4% 4% 8% 3.24 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 48% 18% 14% 9% 10% 0% 2.85 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 43% 19% 14% 6% 8% 9% 2.92 Question 3 Average Grade 3.10 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 13 ## Page 17 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Supreme Court Justices Sample Size = 1229 Average Grade 6. How strongly do you recommend that the Justice be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 63% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 10% Strongly recommend not retain 11% Total Retain 80% Total Not Retain 21% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 7% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% Strongly recommend not retain 10% Total Retain 75% Undecided/Don't Know 7% Total Not Retain 19% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the justice, please check DK/NS for Don't Know/Not Sure. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [ Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate Justice Roy Bean on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 20 5. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. 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 the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1
    • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee NNaatthhaann BB.. CCooaattss 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme Court ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Nathan B. Coats Colorado Supreme Court 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Justice Coats: 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 heard before the Supreme Court in which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent; and 2) district judges and appellate judges. It’s important to note that Supreme Court non- attorney employees were also asked to evaluate you (using the non-attorney survey), but the results are not included in this report due to the very low number of completed surveys. 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 district judges and appellate judges in both tabular and graphical form, and any comments the judges might have made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district/appellate judge questionnaire is 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. Nathan B. Coats 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 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Respondents rated the Justice 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. Attorneys assigned Justice Nathan B. Coats an overall average grade of 3.18, and the district judges and appellate judges assigned Justice Nathan B. Coats an overall average grade of 3.75, resulting in a combined average grade of 3.47. Justice Coats Average Grades (All Years) District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.47 3.18 3.75 Sample Size - 204 100 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Justice Coats’ overall average grades from attorneys for each of these years. Justice Coats Average Attorney Grades by Year Justice Coats Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 3.64 6 2006 3.32 27 2007 3.20 35 2008 3.24 41 2009 3.10 52 2010 3.07 18 2011 3.06 25 All Years 3.18 204 1 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee NNaatthhaann BB.. CCooaattss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 220044)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Justice Nathan B. Coats Sample Size = 204 A B C D Fail DK/NA Justice Coats Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 46% 22% 10% 7% 11% 4% 2.89 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 64% 17% 9% 1% 4% 5% 3.43 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 63% 9% 6% 3% 5% 13% 3.41 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 70% 16% 7% 1% 1% 5% 3.59 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 53% 4% 3% 0% 1% 37% 3.71 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 59% 19% 7% 2% 2% 11% 3.48 Question 2 Average Grade 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 23% 13% 7% 7% 0% 2.98 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 50% 20% 15% 9% 6% 1% 2.98 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 21% 10% 2% 2% 13% 3.31 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 50% 15% 13% 7% 9% 6% 2.95 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 45% 16% 12% 13% 13% 0% 2.66 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 44% 16% 14% 7% 11% 9% 2.81 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 2.95 Overall Average Grade: 3.18 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 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Justice Nathan B. Coats Sample Size = 204 Justice Coats 6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Coats be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 17% Total Retain 75% Total Not Retain 25% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 55% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 16% Total Retain 70% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 24% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Justice Nathan B. Coats Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades Overall average grade 3.18 Question 2 average grade 3.42 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 2.89 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.43 answer questions. 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.41 economic status. 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.59 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.71 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.48 Question 3 average grade 2.95 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 2.98 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.98 basis of the Court's decision. 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.31 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 2.95 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.66 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2.81 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Coats 5 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 Justice Nathan B. Coats Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Coats be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Justice Coats Total Retain 75% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Total Not Retain 25% Strongly recommend not retain 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents Strongly recommend retain 55% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Including Und/DK Respondents Justice Coats Undecided or Don't Know 6% Total Retain 70% Undecided or DK 6% Total Not Retain 24% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Coats 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt aanndd AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuussttiiccee NNaatthhaann BB.. CCooaattss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110)) ## Page 11 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Justice Nathan B. Coats Sample Size = 100 A B C D Fail DK/NA Justice Coats 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 68% 12% 8% 1% 0% 11% 3.65 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 67% 19% 5% 3% 0% 6% 3.59 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 71% 18% 5% 0% 0% 6% 3.70 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 47% 14% 6% 0% 0% 33% 3.61 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 70% 13% 1% 0% 0% 16% 3.82 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 67% 21% 2% 1% 0% 9% 3.69 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 66% 18% 2% 0% 0% 14% 3.74 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 72% 4% 0% 0% 0% 24% 3.95 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 53% 2% 0% 0% 0% 45% 3.96 Overall Average Grade: 3.75 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 8 ## Page 12 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Justice Nathan B. Coats Sample Size = 100 Justice Coats 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 85% Somewhat recommend retain in office 14% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% Total Retain 99% Total Not Retain 1% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 13% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% Total Retain 94% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 1% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 Justice Nathan B. Coats Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades Overall average of 1 through 9 3.75 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.65 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.59 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.70 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.61 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.82 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.69 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.74 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.95 status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.96 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Coats 10 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 14 Justice Nathan B. Coats Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents Strongly recommend retain 85% Somewhat recommend retain 14% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend not retain 0% Justice Coats Total Retain 99% Total Not Retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents Strongly recommend retain 81% Somewhat recommend retain 13% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided or Don't Know 5% Justice Coats Total Retain 94% Undecided or DK 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% Total Not Retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Justice Coats 11 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for these two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the justices who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a Supreme Court justice as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for ten years. After ten years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 13 ## Page 17 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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 to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the 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 State 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. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 column on the far right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. 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 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 Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. 14 ## Page 18 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2011, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 22.0% for Justice Coats and 18.5% for the Court of Appeals retention judges. Looking at only the 2011 results, the cooperation rate for Justice Coats is 55.6% and the cooperation rate for the Court of Appeals retention judges is 38.6%. A table of Justice Coats’ cooperation rate is shown below. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2005 through 2011. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Justice Coats 947 724 19 204 22.0% II District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: One-hundred seventy-three (173) district judges and 28 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the appellate judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions, plus the retention recommendation question (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the district judge and appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each appellate judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the appellate judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the appellate judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. 15 ## Page 19 d. Analysis: The District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the nine questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. The overall 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 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 District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section lists the comments district and appellate judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: Two hundred and one questionnaires were mailed (173 district judges and 28 appellate judges) and 104 were returned, though not all appellate judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 16 ## Page 20 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 21 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate Justice Roy Bean on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 22 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1 ## Page 23 S1 Please answer the enclosed questions about the one Supreme Court Justice and the six Court of Appeals Judges who are eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. For questions 1 through 9 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” Thank you. BAR CODE GOES HERE Page 12 ## Page 24 S2 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. No A B C D F Grade Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 2. Writing opinions that are clear. No A B C D F Grade Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Page 2 Page 11 ## Page 25 S3 F. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the space below. If you 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the would like to make more comments than space allows, feel Court’s decision. free to attach a sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ G. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge John R. Webb in the space below. If you would like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. attach a sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you. Page 10 Page 3 ## Page 26 S4 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. D. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Dennis A. Graham in the space below. If you would like to No make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a A B C D F Grade sheet with additional comments. Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ _ 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and E. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge facts. Gale T. Miller in the space below. If you would like to make No more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet A B C D F Grade with additional comments. Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ _ Page 4 Page 9 ## Page 27 S5 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be Laurie A. Booras in the space below. If you would like to decided. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ C. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or James S. Casebolt in the space below. If you would like to economic status. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ Page 8 Page 5 ## Page 28 S6 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 10. [Continued] No Judge Judge Judge A B C D F Grade Miller Taubman Webb Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation . 3 3 3 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. A. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Nathan B. Coats in the space below. If you would like to Justice Judge make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a Coats Booras sheet with additional comments. Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 _ Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 _ _ _ Judge Judge _ Casebolt Graham Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Page 6 Page 7
  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 14, 2002 Justice Nathan B. Coats Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Ave. Denver, CO 80203 Dear Justice Coats: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of attorneys who have had cases with opinions authored by Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices who face a retention vote in the next general election, and a second survey concerning these judges and justices is conducted among all of the State’s trial judges. This report contains the results of these two surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the trial-judges survey. · Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge or justice. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for trial -judge comments. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arapahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 Justice Nathan B. Coats Attorney Survey Number Average Letter A B C D Fail Responding Grade Grade Being fair and impartial toward both 73% 13% 3% 6% 5% 62 3.4 B+ sides of the case. Writing opinions that are well written 59% 27% 5% 5% 4% 56 3.3 B and understandable. Managing cases efficiently and with 60% 30% 8% 3% 40 3.5 B+ minimal delay. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 45% 39% 10% 2% 4% 51 3.2 B Having knowledge of the rules of 78% 18% 4% 45 3.7 A- evidence and proceedure. Making decisions without regard to 75% 13% 2% 6% 4% 52 3.5 B+ possible criticism. Making the correct decision based 58% 20% 9% 3% 9% 65 3.2 B upon the law and facts. Being prepared for oral argument. 68% 26% 4% 2% 57 3.6 B+ Asking thoughtful questions in oral 65% 25% 5% 2% 2% 55 3.5 B+ argument. Treating parties equally regardless of 83% 10% 4% 2% 48 3.7 A- race, sex or economic status. Being courteous toward attorneys. 83% 15% 2% 65 3.8 A- Not engaging in ex parte 93% 7% 41 3.9 A- communications. Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Supreme Court C Page 1 ## Page 3 Justice Nathan B. Coats Attorney Survey Do you recommend that Justice Coats be retained in office or not be retained in office? Retain in office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87% Do not retain in office . . . . . . . . 7% No opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. %. . Judicial Performance Survey 2002 S upreme Court Page 2 ## Page 4 Justice Nathan B. Coats Trial Judge Survey Number Average Letter A B C D Fail Responding Grade Grade Being fair and impartial toward both 55% 25% 13% 5% 2% 128 3.3 B+ sides of the case. Writing opinions that are well written 54% 30% 11% 3% 1% 148 3.3 B+ and understandable. Managing cases efficiently and with 43% 34% 16% 6% 1% 68 3.1 B minimal delay. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 45% 33% 15% 5% 1% 73 3.2 B Having knowledge of the rules of 72% 20% 7% 1% 137 3.6 B+ evidence and proceedure. Making decisions without regard to 64% 23% 9% 3% 1% 136 3.4 B+ possible criticism. Making the correct decision based 56% 31% 8% 6% 1% 144 3.3 B upon the law and facts. Being prepared for oral argument. 68% 23% 6% 2% 47 3.6 B+ Asking thoughtful questions in oral 64% 21% 10% 5% 39 3.4 B+ argument. Willingness to undertake 60% 22% 11% 5% 2% 55 3.3 B administrative responsibilities. Being courteous toward attorneys. 76% 20% 3% 1% 76 3.7 A- Not engaging in ex parte 84% 11% 2% 2% 2% 56 3.7 A- communications. Willingness to help other judges and 71% 18% 8% 3% 72 3.6 B+ justices. Treating parties equally regardless of 84% 8% 5% 3% 1% 105 3.7 A- race, sex or economic status. Judicial Performance Survey 2002 S upreme Court Page 1 ## Page 5 Justice Nathan B. Coats Trial Judge Survey Do you recommend that Judge Coats be retained in office or not be retained in office? Retain in office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84% Do not retain in office . . . . . . . . 4% No opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 .2 .% . Judicial Performance Survey 2002 S upreme Court Page 2 ## Page 6 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the three Court of Appeals judges and one Supreme Court justice standing for retention in November 2002. Talmey-Drake Research was also provided with the list of the 268 trial-court judges. Two surveys were conducted, one among attorneys who had opinions authored by one of the three Court of Appeals judges or the Supreme Court justice, and a second survey of all trial judges. Questionnaire: Copies of the two questionnaires used are provided at the end of this report. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in a number of different areas. These grades were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Attorneys 1215 470 406 138 201 53.7% Trial Judges 268 189 48 0 31 79.7% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or trial judge. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. 1 ## Page 7 A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and trial judges. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 2 ## Page 8 Justice Nathan B. Coats Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate Attorney 323 112 100 35 76 52.8% Judge 268 186 48 31 78.5% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Supreme Court

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