Cindy Dang

Trial Court · Adams · Adams

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Adams · Adams
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 61.0% yes
83,416 yes · 53,350 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance voted seven to three that Judge Cindy Dang MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Cindy Dang earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from UC Irvine in 1994, and her Juris Doctorate from the Western School of Law in San Diego in 1996. In addition to representing clients in domestic, criminal, juvenile and immigration matters, she served as a guardian ad litem and child and family investigator as well as deputy DA in Colorado Springs prior to her appointment to the 17th Judicial District in 2013. Judge Dang first served as a district court magistrate in the Seventeenth Judicial District before being appointed as a county judge. Judge Dang also volunteers with many organizations that support refugee and immigrant families. The Commission’s assessment and evaluation is based on a review of professional surveys of attorneys and others who have appeared in her court, a personal interview with the judge, her self-evaluation, legal opinions rendered by the judge, case-processing statistics, and personal observations of the judge in her courtroom. The results of the professional survey reflect the opinions of 54 attorneys and 73 non-attorneys. These surveys include questions about demeanor, fairness, communication, diligence, and application of the law. Nineteen percent of the attorneys who responded believe that Judge Dang met performance standards, 65% of the attorneys did not believe Judge Dang met performance standards and 15% had no opinion. Eighty-nine percent of the non-attorneys who responded to the survey believe that Judge Dang met performance standards, while 6% of non-attorneys did not believe she met performance standards and 6% had no opinion. Judge Dang’s workload consists of 33% criminal cases, 34% jury trials and 34% traffic. During the term, she has had the most jury trials of all the county judges in Adams County. When Judge Dang was appointed to the bench her division had an open case load of 604 which she has been able to reduce to 417. Of her appealed decisions over 90% were upheld by the higher court. Judge Dang presented a comprehensive action plan designed to address some of her lower survey scores in communication, demeanor and docket management. Many on the commission believe she is committed to, and capable of improving her judicial performance. She has been proactive in recognizing areas of concern and has taken steps to improve her performance. She has enrolled in numerous classes to enhance her bench skills as well as enlisted in the help of more experienced judges to serve as mentors. Given her limited time as a county judge, it is the belief of this Commission that she will improve if given time to enact her action plan.

Surveys & reports

2018 cycle
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  —
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  59%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  89%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang, 162 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 127 agreed they had worked with Judge Dang enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 127 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.92 4 3.72 2.97 3 2.86 2 1.71 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 2.86 1.71 3.72 3.92 2.97 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 96% 89% 80% 65% 59% 60% 57% 40% 31% 29% 19% 20% 15% 14% 10% 6% 6% 4% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 59% 19% 89% 96% 57% standards No, does not meet performance 31% 65% 6% 0% 29% standards No opinion 10% 15% 6% 4% 14% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 1.81 N/A N/A N/A Application and 1.92 3.67 3.90 2.74 Knowledge of Law Communications 1.61 3.77 3.92 3.20 Diligence 1.80 3.71 3.93 3.02 Demeanor 1.39 3.72 3.93 2.88 Fairness N/A 3.73 3.92 3.00 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 180 0 65 36% 17% Total Non- 1104 196 97 11% 25% Attorneys Staff 16 0 5 31% 40% Jurors 246 3 58 24% 5% Other Non- 842 193 34 5% 56% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dang, 65 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 54 agreed they had worked with Judge Dang enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 54 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dang on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 1.81 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 2.85 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 1.75 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 2.43 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 1.27 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Dang Promptly issuing a decision on the 10 6 9 1 1 25 52 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 10 2 18 11 12 1 54 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 7 10 15 2 3 16 53 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 6 8 15 18 3 54 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dang on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 1.92 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 1.92 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 1.92 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 1.94 are similar 3.15 1.83 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 1.81 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Dang Being able to identify and 8 10 11 10 10 2 51 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 6 15 10 9 11 1 52 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 5 16 9 5 12 5 52 similar Being fair and impartial to both 7 10 15 7 13 -- 52 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 8 11 8 6 15 4 52 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dang on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 1.61 Communications Overall Average 3.38 1.6 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 1.52 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Dang Making sure all participants 7 7 10 11 15 2 52 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4 4 4 8 9 22 51 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dang on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 1.39 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 1.53 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 1.16 Treating participants with respect 3.30 1.52 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 5 5 15 13 13 -- 51 dignity Treating participants with respect 4 3 8 18 18 -- 51 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 4 7 15 9 15 1 51 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dang on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 1.8 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.79 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 1.9 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 1.79 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 6 8 11 14 8 5 52 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 5 10 11 8 8 9 51 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 7 8 12 10 11 3 51 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Dang meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang Yes, meets performance 19% standards No, does not meet 65% performance standards No opinion 15% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang, 97 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 73 agreed they had worked with Judge Dang enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 73 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.72 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.72 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.72 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.76 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.65 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 62 6 1 -- 3 1 73 Treating participants with respect 63 5 -- 1 3 1 73 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 63 3 1 -- 3 3 73 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 58 8 1 1 3 2 73 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.73 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.74 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.71 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.76 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.77 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Dang Giving participants an 61 7 2 -- 2 1 73 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 62 5 2 -- 3 1 73 case without bias Treating fairly people who 41 1 -- 2 1 28 73 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 61 5 -- 1 2 4 73 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.77 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.7 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.78 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.83 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 59 7 3 -- 2 2 73 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 63 6 1 -- 2 1 73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 64 6 1 -- 1 1 73 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.71 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.69 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.77 for cases 3.64 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.68 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.72 wasted time 3.55 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 55 12 -- 2 1 3 73 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 61 5 -- 1 2 3 72 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 64 2 2 1 3 1 73 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 55 3 1 1 3 10 73 Managing court proceedings so that there is 59 6 1 1 2 3 72 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.67 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.65 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.75 outside pressure 3.55 3.72 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Dang All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Dang Giving reasons for rulings 55 9 -- 1 3 5 73 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 53 5 1 -- 2 12 73 pressure Being able to identify and 58 3 4 -- 2 6 73 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Dang meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang Yes, meets performance 89% standards No, does not meet 6% performance standards No opinion 6% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Cindy Hoang-Ha Thi Dang 22

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

2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026