Tomee Crespin

Trial Court · Adams · Adams

Does Not Meet1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Adams · Adams
Does Not Meet
VotersNot retained· 45.5% yes
105,285 yes · 125,902 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Does Not Meet Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds by a 5-3 vote that the Honorable Tomee Crespin DOES NOT MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Two Commission members did not participate in the voting. Judge Crespin was placed on a performance plan to encourage her to improve her courtroom presence and demeanor, both of which the Commission had communicated to her were not satisfactory. The expectation was that she would show significant effort and improvement in the areas raised in that plan; a review by the Commission indicates that has not occurred, although she has worked to improve her case management skills and her docket is timely managed. However, its concern that she did not treat those appearing before her with respect, that her courtroom was not conducted in a neutral manner, and that rulings of law were not consistent, led to the vote shown above. The Commission conducted two personal interviews with Judge Crespin, observed her performance in court, conducted interviews of attorneys who have appeared in her courtroom, reviewed comments submitted by attorneys, parties, and other judges familiar with her work, and reviewed orders and decisions issued by the Judge. The Commission also relied on its interim evaluation of Judge Crespin’s performance in 2019. These observations and reviews led to the finding that Judge Crespin’s treatment of attorneys and parties appearing in her courtroom is demeaning and disrespectful. She acknowledges and understands that many of her interactions and communications towards attorneys and parties have been inappropriate and appears to understand the impact of them as she expressed a full commitment to prevent unseemly interactions in the future. But, because of the fundamental role that a judge plays in giving parties and the public confidence in the fairness of our judicial system, the Commission finds that her behavior and treatment of those in her courtroom is inappropriate. Some commissioners applauded Judge Crespin’s offer to undertake an on-going, supervised, plan designed to bring significant changes, while others questioned whether she could fairly and impartially deliver equal justice in her courtroom. Survey information collected in 2018, 2019 and 2020 included responses from, in total, 56 attorneys and 61 non-attorneys with knowledge of Judge Crespin. These surveys raised serious questions about whether Judge Crespin effectively applies the law to the facts, finding that she did not always base her decisions on the evidence and arguments made before her. Also troubling was that Judge Crespin did not appear to be fair and impartial to both sides. Judge Crespin was appointed to the bench in 2016. Prior to her appointment to the District Court, she was a sole practitioner at the Law Office of Tomee Crespin, LLC where she focused on family and criminal law litigation. She also served as an Associate Judge in Commerce City Municipal Court, Brighton Municipal Court, and Lakewood Municipal Court. She earned her undergraduate degree from Metropolitan State College of Denver in 1996 and her J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law in 2000. Judge Tomee Crespin’s Response: Voters should know I MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS based on State of Colorado compiled case data. I’m a Hispanic woman who grew up poor, graduated from Ranum H.S. and am raising my family in this community. I’ve experienced racist, demeaning, unfair and disrespectful behavior in life, that’s not how I treat people. I’ve ethically and honestly served this community for 20 years. I completed a performance plan to improve and conform to a traditional view of a judge. I’m not a traditional judge. I’m a direct, no-nonsense judge dedicated to equal treatment of all, based on fair application of the law.

Surveys & reports

2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Tomee Crespin 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .12 Survey of Appellate Judges .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.17 Methodology and How to Read Results .17 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .18 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Crespin, 90 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 90 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 Crespin All District Judges Judge Crespin All District Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 88% 85% 82% 80% 60% 52% 41% 40% 20% 12% 11% 8% 7% 6% 3% 3% 0% Judge Crespin All District Judges Judge Crespin All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Crespin Crespin Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 52% 82% 88% 85% standards No, does not meet 41% 12% 8% 11% performance standards No opinion 7% 6% 3% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.8 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.4 Communications 3.6 3.2 Diligence 3.4 2.9 Demeanor 3.5 3.5 Fairness 3.5 Judge Crespin All District Judges Judge All District Crespin Judges Case 2.8 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.2 3.4 Law Communications 3.4 3.6 Diligence 3.2 3.4 Demeanor 2.9 3.5 Fairness 3.5 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 39 34% 77% 30 Non- 85 6% 71% 60 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Crespin received 2 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 Tomee Crespin 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Overall 2.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2.8 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 21 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 2.8 3.4 2.8 N/A 29 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 26 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.5 3.3 2.5 N/A 30 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Overall 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2.6 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.2 3.4 2.6 3.5 84 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 27 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.1 3 N/A 16 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.6 3.3 2.6 N/A 28 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.7 3.2 2.7 N/A 28 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 50 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2.8 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.6 2.8 3.6 87 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 25 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 59 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 60 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Score 2.9 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3 3.5 2.2 3.4 91 Treating participants with respect 2.9 3.5 1.9 3.4 91 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3 3.4 2.1 3.5 89 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 60 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2.6 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 28 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 2.8 3.6 84 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.5 3.4 2.5 N/A 26 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 59 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 59 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 54 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 57 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Crespin Score 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Crespin Attorneys Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Crespin District Judge Crespin Judge Crespin Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 59 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 60 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 42 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 58 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Crespin 8 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Crespin enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Crespin Score 3.1 Judge Crespin District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.1 3.6 8 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Crespin, 90 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 90 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 143,430 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 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 Tomee Crespin 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 Tomee Crespin 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 8 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Crespin to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 116 39 0 30 77% Law Enforcement 444 16 7 3 19% Litigant 1074 18 235 14 78% Juror 175 37 11 33 89% Others 43 14 5 10 71% Total Non-Attorneys 1736 85 258 60 71% Total Respondents 1852 124 258 90 73% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 18
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  2.2
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  39%
  30 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  67%
  1 respondent
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Tomee Crespin 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Crespin, 27 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 27 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 2.2 2 1 0 Judge Crespin All District Judges Judge Crespin All District Judges Overall Grade 2.2 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 83% 80% 67% 60% 43% 39% 40% 33% 17% 20% 12% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Crespin All District Judges Judge Crespin All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Crespin Crespin Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 39% 83% 67% 92% standards No, does not meet 43% 12% 33% 6% performance standards No opinion 17% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.4 Case Management 3.4 2.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 2.3 Communications 3.5 2.3 Diligence 3.4 1.8 Demeanor 3.5 3.5 Fairness 3.7 Judge Crespin All District Judges Judge All District Crespin Judges Case 2.4 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 2.2 3.3 Law Communications 2.3 3.5 Diligence 2.3 3.4 Demeanor 1.8 3.5 Fairness 3.5 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 30 32% 87% 26 Non-Attorneys 1 25% 100% 1 In addition to the responses above, Judge Crespin received 2 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 Tomee Crespin 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Overall 2.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2.4 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 2.5 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 2.7 3.5 2.6 4.0 19 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 2.3 3.5 2.4 1.0 25 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 2.4 3.4 2.4 - 20 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.2 3.4 2.2 - 22 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Overall 2.2 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 2.3 3.4 2.1 4.0 26 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.2 3.3 2.2 N/A 22 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 21 similar Being fair and impartial to both 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 23 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 23 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Overall 2.3 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2.1 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 2.4 3.6 2.2 4.0 26 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 17 reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Score 1.8 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Crespin Attorneys 1.6 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 1.7 3.5 1.6 2.7 26 Treating participants with respect 1.6 3.5 1.5 2.7 26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 1.9 3.4 1.8 3.0 26 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Crespin Score 2.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Crespin Attorneys 2.1 Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 11 ## Page 12 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Crespin Judges Crespin Crespin Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.2 3.3 2.2 N/A 23 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 1.8 3.4 1.8 N/A 21 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 2.2 3.4 2.2 N/A 22 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3 3.7 N/A 3.0 3 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 3 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Crespin Score 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Crespin Attorneys Judge Crespin Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Crespin District Judge Crespin Judge Crespin Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.7 N/A 3.3 3 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.7 N/A 3.3 3 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Crespin 6 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Crespin enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Crespin Score 3.2 Judge Crespin District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.2 3.6 6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Crespin, 27 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 27 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 Tomee Crespin 15 ## Page 16 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 Tomee Crespin 16 ## Page 17 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 Tomee Crespin 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 6 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Crespin to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 93 30 0 26 87% Staff 2 1 0 1 - Others 2 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 4 1 0 1 100% Total Respondents 97 31 0 27 87% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Tomee Crespin 19

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

2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026