Gary W. Davis

Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa

Meets Standards8 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2022 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 81.1% yes
570 yes · 133 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Gary W. Davis MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Five members of the Commission voted that Judge Davis met judicial performance standards, while two members voted that he did not meet judicial performance standards. After conducting extensive research on Judge Davis’s performance, the Commission found by majority decision that Judge Davis meets the standards as to integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. The majority of the commission observed Judge Davis during a hearing involving two pro se litigants. Judge Davis clearly explained the law to both parties and helped guide them through the legal process. Members on the Commission believe Judge Davis excels in working with pro se litigants and exhibits good courtroom demeanor, patience, and consideration to those individuals. The Commission has concerns about communication and inefficient docket management, and some commissioners have concerns regarding consistent application of the law. Judge Davis is receptive to improving his communication skills with all parties and has demonstrated his willingness to observe other judges to improve efficiency. Based upon these considerations, the Judicial Performance Commission recommends that Judge Davis meets performance standards. The Commissioners reviewed the self-evaluation and the written opinions authored by Judge Davis; the 2021 Interim and 2022 Judicial Performance Survey results; comments from representatives of the District Attorney and the Public Defender’s Offices; conducted courtroom observations; as well as a personal interview with Judge Davis. Nine individuals completed surveys, including 5 attorneys and 4 non- attorneys. The five attorneys ranked Judge Davis’s performance below the average scores for all County Judges in case management, legal knowledge and application, communications, demeanor, diligence and fairness. When asked whether Judge Davis met performance standards, 50% responded that Judge Davis meets performance standards, while the remaining 50% responded that he did not. The four non-attorney respondents ranked Judge Davis’s performance in all areas above the average scores for all County Judges. Additionally, 100% of the non-attorneys responded that Judge Davis does meet judicial performance standards. The survey sample size is too small to carry much significance for the Commission. However, the Commission identified two trends comparing the 2021 Interim Survey and the 2022 Survey: attorneys scored Judge Davis lower in most areas in 2022 than in 2021, while non-attorney evaluations increased in most areas.
2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Commission vote: 8 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 84.8% yes
631 yes · 113 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 8-0 that Judge Gary W. Davis MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Davis received his undergraduate degree from Wheaton College and his Juris Doctorate from University of Denver College of Law. Judge Davis serves Kiowa County as a part-time County Court Judge and maintains a full-time private practice in Eads, Colorado. The Commission conducted extensive research in recommending that Judge Davis meets performance standards, including surveys, courtroom observations, a review of caseload data, a review of his self-evaluation and written orders, and interviews. Non-attorneys (6) and attorneys (9) who submitted responses to our survey gave Judge Davis moderate scores overall, with 50% recommending that Judge Davis meets performance standards. The survey sample size is too small to carry much significance for the Commission. The Commission found that Judge Davis’s performance is good in several areas. In particular, the Commission found that Judge Davis works diligently to prepare for proceedings in his courtroom. Judge Davis strives to understand applicable law through legal research and to apply the law to only the facts that are before him. The majority of the Commission observed a half-day civil trial between a litigant without an attorney and a litigant with an attorney. It was clear to the Commission that Judge Davis works diligently to ensure that parties without attorneys understand the proceeding and that all litigants are treated fairly. The Commission notes that Judge Davis’s criminal dockets can be inefficient and recommends that Judge Davis continue to work on improving his procedural efficiency. However, the Commission also commends Judge Davis for his attempts to continually improve his courtroom by observing other judges and by actively attending relevant continuing legal education.
2014 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 80.0% yes
586 yes · 147 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Gary W. Davis BE RETAINED. Judge Davis was born in Lamar, Colorado and graduated from Lamar High School in 1970. He received his secondary education at Wheaton College and graduated from the University of Denver College of Law in 1978. Judge Davis was appointed to the bench in Kiowa County Court in 1992 to serve in a part time position which is classified as a 20 percent full time judge. He also continues to maintain a part-time private law practice. A judicial performance survey was received by the Commission from attorneys and non-attorneys. The percentage of responses received from attorneys was 67% for retention and 33% for non-retention. The percentage of responses received from non-attorneys was 88% for retention and 13% for non-retention. (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Judge Davis received an overall combined average grade of 3.24 on a scale of 0 to 4. In addition to survey assessments, the members of the Commission received comments from a representative of the Office of the Public Defender, reviewed written opinions and orders rendered by Judge Davis, observed Judge Davis in the courtroom, and interviewed Judge Davis. Judge Davis is committed to constant improvement in his courtroom and to issuing sound legal decisions.
2010 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Meets Standards(Retain)
Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Gary W. Davis BE RETAINED by a vote of 9 to 0, with one recusal due to a member of the Commission being unable to attend one of the meetings. Judge Davis was born in Lamar, Colorado and graduated from Lamar High School in 1970. He received his secondary education at Wheaton College and graduated from the University of Denver College of Law in 1978. Judge Davis was in private practice in Lamar and Eads from 1978 to 1987, and has been in private practice in Eads since 1987. He was appointed County Judge in 1992. Judge Davis has been a volunteer speaker regarding estate planning. He is also involved in church and as a past church board member and teacher has been able to achieve a level of involvement that strikes a good balance between being available while maintaining an appropriate distance so as not to have his judicial objectivity called into question. The Kiowa County Court handles cases consisting primarily of traffic violations, civil claims not exceeding $15,000.00, small claims and misdemeanor cases. Judge Davis serves in a part-time position which typically involves an afternoon docket 4 to 5 days per month. His main strength is that he takes adequate time to ensure the defendant understands and knows the laws. Judge Davis also has a sense of humor, but maintains control of his courtroom. The members of the Commission personally interviewed Judge Davis on May 4, 2010. Judge Davis enjoys serving as county judge, and believes that he can continue to perform his obligations in a competent and timely manner. A judicial performance survey was received by the Commission from attorneys and non-attorneys. The category of non-attorneys included parties to a case, law enforcement and court personnel. The percentage of responses received from attorneys was 100% for retention and 0% for non-retention. The percentage of responses received from non-attorneys was 67% for retention, 11% undecided and 22% for non-retention.
2006 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 70.7% yes
556 yes · 230 no50% needed to retain
Reports: 2006 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends Judge Gary W. Davis BE RETAINED by a unanimous vote of 10 to 0. Judge Gary Davis was appointed to the bench on June 1, 1992, and has served as Kiowa County Judge for the past 14 years. Prior to his appointment Judge Davis was a private attorney in Kiowa County Colorado. He is a 1978 graduate of the University Of Denver Law School. His community service as a volunteer speaker regarding estate planning and his church service as a past church board member and teacher has helped him to achieve a level of involvement that strikes a good balance between being available while maintaining an appropriate distance so as to not have his judicial objectivity called into question. Judge Davis continues to maintain a private law practice because he is a part time judge. The Commission reviewed written evaluations on Judge Davis from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires and public comments. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Davis and conducted a personal interview with Judge Davis. Judge Davis received high ratings from attorneys in survey results that indicated extremely good communication and demeanor. He also received a perfect score in the survey regarding his neutrality. This was better than the average of all county judges across the state. Of the attorneys responding to the survey 100% felt he should be retained. The non-attorney questionnaires received by the Commission rated Judge Davis lower in virtually every category as compared to the attorney ratings. However, the number of respondents to the surveys, both attorney and non-attorney, was small and therefore hard to obtain meaningful statistics. After review of all available data, interviewing the Judge, and observing the Judge in the courtroom, the Commission is united in recommending Judge Davis for retention.
2002 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Meets Standards(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 Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Gary W. Davis BE RETAINED. Judge Davis was appointed as Kiowa County Judge on June 1, 1992. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Davis began as an associate at the Lefferdink Law Firm in Lamar, Colorado, and in 1980 became a partner of that firm. Judge Davis was admitted to the practice of law in Colorado on September 29, 1978. Judge Davis still practices law as a part-time sole practitioner concentrating in the areas of representing local governmental entities and financial institutions and probate, estate planning and transactional matters. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Davis from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Davis, conducted a personal interview with him and held a public hearing at which no negative comments were received regarding Judge Davis. Judge Davis demonstrates a cordial relationship with court staff. He believes the public is confident of his ability to conduct fair and impartial proceedings. Judge Davis welcomed the results of the survey and is willing to use the information from the survey to improve in areas where improvement is necessary. He believes his greatest strength is the ability to understand and apply the law. Judge Davis received high ratings from attorneys in virtually all categories, with 89% of the attorneys surveyed recommending his retention. Judge Davis received good to high ratings from non-attorneys in virtually every category, with only 23% of non-attorneys not recommending retention.
1998 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Meets Standards(Retain)
Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Gary W. Davis BE RETAINED. The basis for the decision to recommend retention is based upon interviews and personal recommendations presented to the Commission. Judge Gary W. Davis has been the Kiowa County Judge since his appointment on May 8, 1992. Judge Gary Davis is classified as a 20% judge and continues to maintain a private practice in Kiowa County. During the course of his interview, Judge Davis identified his practice as that of a "transactional" practice consisting of primarily real estate and contractual matters. The overall response was that as the Kiowa County Judge, Judge Davis has maintained himself with the highest integrity and has been a positive factor in the community. Reports to the Commission were that Judge Davis is highly regarded by local law enforcement, and the overall recommendations were for retention. The majority of cases handled by Judge Davis are traffic cases with relatively few civil court matters coming before the court. There were no grievances or complaints concerning Judge Davis brought to the Commission's attention. It is the recommendation of the Commission that Judge Gary W. Davis be retained.
1994 retention cycle
Trial Court · Kiowa · Kiowa
Meets Standards(Retain)
Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain Judge Davis, age 41, was born in Lamar, Colorado and graduated from Lamar High School in 1970. He received his secondary education at Wheaton, Illinois College and the University of Denver School of Law, where he graduate in 1978. He was in private practice as an associate and partner with the Lefferdink law firm in Lamar and Eads from 1978 to 1987, and has been the sole practitioner in Eads from 1987 to the present. He was appointed County Judge of Kiowa County in June 1992. This will be his first retention election. The cases handled by the Kiowa County Court consist primarily of traffic offenses. The court also has jurisdiction over civil cases up to $10,000, small claims, and misdemeanor cases. For 1993, the Kiowa County Court handled 163 traffic cases, 29 civil cases, and 20 misdemeanor cases. This is a part-time position involving approximately five to six days per month. Responses received by the Commission from attorneys, litigants, law enforcement, and court personnel were limited but overly very favorable. Of the six responses received, five recommended retention while one had no opinion. The only self-improvement recommendation was by Judge Davis himself, who felt this would occur through experience on the bench. The members of the Commission personally interviewed Judge Davis on June 9, 1994. The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Davis BE RETAINED.

Surveys & reports

2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Gary W. Davis 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Davis, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 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 3 2 1 0 Judge Davis All County Judges Judge Davis All County Judges Overall Grade 3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 80% 79% 80% 60% 50% 40% 25% 25% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Davis All County Judges Judge Davis All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Davis Davis Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 50% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 25% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 25% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 Case Management 3.5 2.9 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.0 Communications 3.5 3.0 Diligence 3.4 2.8 Demeanor 3.4 3.8 Fairness 3.4 Judge Davis All County Judges All County Judge Davis Judges Case Management 3.2 3.5 Application and 2.9 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.0 3.5 Diligence 3.0 3.4 Demeanor 2.8 3.4 Fairness 3.8 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 4 16% 100% 4 Non-Attorneys 8 - - 5 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Davis received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Davis Attorneys 2.4 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Davis County Judges Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.3 3.5 2.8 3.8 9 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.4 2.2 3.8 9 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.1 3.4 2.2 4.0 8 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.4 2.5 3.8 9 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Overall 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.8 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Davis County Judges Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 2.9 3.3 2 3.6 9 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 1.8 3.2 1.8 N/A 4 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 2 3.3 2 N/A 4 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 1.8 3.2 1.8 N/A 4 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 1.8 3.2 1.8 N/A 4 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 5 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 5 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Overall 3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Davis Attorneys 2.1 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Davis County Judges Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.1 3.5 2.2 3.8 9 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2 3.3 2 N/A 4 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 5 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Score 2.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.9 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Davis County Judges Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 2.8 3.4 1.8 3.6 9 dignity Treating participants with respect 2.9 3.4 2 3.6 9 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2.9 3.3 2 3.6 9 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 5 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Score 3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.9 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Davis County Judges Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.8 3.2 1.8 N/A 4 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2 3.3 2 N/A 4 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 2 3.3 2 N/A 4 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 5 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 5 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 5 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 4 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 11 ## Page 12 Judge Davis County Judges Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 5 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Davis Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Davis Attorneys Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Davis County Judges Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 5 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 5 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 5 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 5 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Davis, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 15 ## Page 16 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 interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 25 4 0 4 100% Staff 1 0 1 - Others 74 7 0 4 - Total Non-Attorneys - 8 - 5 - Total Respondents - 12 - 9 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 17
- 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  2.5
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  50%
  9 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  100%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Gary W. Davis 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Davis, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 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 2.5 2 1 0 Judge Davis All County Judges Judge Davis All County Judges Overall Grade 2.5 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 83% 83% 80% 60% 50% 50% 40% 20% 13% 12% 4% 6% 0% Judge Davis All County Judges Judge Davis All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Davis Davis Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 50% 83% 100% 83% standards No, does not meet 50% 13% 0% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.6 Case Management 3.4 2.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 2.6 Communications 3.5 2.3 Diligence 3.4 2.5 Demeanor 3.4 2.3 Fairness 3.3 Judge Davis All County Judges Judge All County Davis Judges Case Management 2.6 3.4 Application and 2.4 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.6 3.5 Diligence 2.3 3.4 Demeanor 2.5 3.4 Fairness 2.3 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 9 31% 56% 5 Non- 4 - - 4 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Davis received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Overall 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.7 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Davis Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 2.4 3.5 1.3 4.0 5 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 2.7 3.4 1.8 4.0 7 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 2.4 3.5 1.5 3.7 7 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.7 3.5 1.8 4.0 7 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Overall 2.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.7 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Davis Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 2.3 3.3 1.8 3.0 7 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 1.5 3.3 1.5 N/A 4 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 4 similar Consistently applying laws and 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 4 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 3 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 3 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Overall 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.5 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 4.0 County Judge Davis Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 2.6 3.5 1.5 4.0 7 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 1.3 3.4 1.3 N/A 3 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Score 2.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.6 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.7 County Judge Davis Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.6 3.4 1.8 3.7 7 Treating participants with respect 2.6 3.4 1.5 4.0 7 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 3 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Davis Score 2.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.5 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Davis Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 4 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 0.7 3.4 0.7 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 1.2 3.4 1.2 N/A 4 for cases Beginning court on time. 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 2 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 2 cases Being prepared for cases. 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 2 Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 2 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Davis Score 2.3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Davis Attorneys 1.5 Judge Davis Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Davis County Judge Davis Judge Davis Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 2 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 2.2 3.3 1.5 3.5 6 manner. Being fair and impartial 1.5 3.3 1.5 N/A 4 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Davis, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 14 ## Page 15 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 29 9 5 56% Staff - 2 2 - Others 97 2 2 100% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 4 4 - Total Respondents - 13 9 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 16
2018 cycle
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  —
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  50%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  80%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Gary W. Davis 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 Gary W. Davis, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 15 agreed they had worked with Judge Davis enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 15 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 3.91 3.97 4 3 2.59 2 1.76 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Gary W. Davis Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 2.59 1.76 3.91 N/A 3.97 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 80% 80% 71% 67% 60% 50% 42% 40% 33% 29% 20% 20% 8% 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 Gary W. Davis Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 50% 29% 80% 0% 67% standards No, does not meet performance 42% 71% 0% 0% 0% standards No opinion 8% 0% 20% 0% 33% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Gary W. Davis Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 2.21 N/A N/A N/A Application and 1.47 4.00 N/A 4.00 Knowledge of Law Communications 1.94 3.78 N/A 3.92 Diligence 1.42 3.83 N/A 3.95 Demeanor 1.75 3.96 N/A 4.00 Fairness N/A 4.00 N/A 4.00 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 19 0 13 68% 31% Total Non- 83 20 8 13% 25% Attorneys Staff 3 0 3 100% 33% Jurors 0 0 0 N/A N/A Other Non- 80 20 5 8% 20% 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 Gary W. Davis 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Davis, 13 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 9 agreed they had worked with Judge Davis enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 9 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Davis 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 2.21 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 2.43 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 1.89 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 2.5 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 2.56 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Gary W. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Davis Promptly issuing a decision on the 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 2 2 1 1 3 -- 9 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 2 2 -- 1 1 3 9 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2 4 1 1 1 -- 9 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Davis 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 1.47 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 1.5 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 1.38 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 2.5 are similar 3.15 1.5 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 1.38 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 2 -- 1 2 3 -- 8 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2 -- -- 3 3 -- 8 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 2 -- -- 2 -- 1 5 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2 -- -- 4 2 -- 8 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2 -- 1 1 4 -- 8 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Davis 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 1.94 Communications Overall Average 3.38 2.13 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 1.71 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 2 1 3 -- 2 -- 8 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 2 -- 2 -- 3 1 8 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Davis 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 1.75 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 1.88 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 1.75 Treating participants with respect 3.30 1.63 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 2 -- 3 1 2 -- 8 dignity Treating participants with respect 2 1 1 1 3 -- 8 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2 -- 1 3 2 -- 8 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Davis 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 1.42 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.38 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 1.5 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 1.67 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 2 -- -- 3 3 -- 8 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 2 -- -- 1 3 2 8 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 2 -- -- 2 2 2 8 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 Gary W. Davis 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Davis meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Gary W. Davis Yes, meets performance 29% standards No, does not meet 71% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Gary W. Davis, 8 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 6 agreed they had worked with Judge Davis enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 6 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Gary W. Davis 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 Gary W. Davis 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 3.96 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 4 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 4 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.83 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 4 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 Treating participants with respect 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 5 1 -- -- -- -- 6 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 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 Gary W. Davis 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 4 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 4 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 4 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 4 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 4 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 case without bias Treating fairly people who 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 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 Gary W. Davis 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 3.78 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.5 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.83 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 4 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 4 1 1 -- -- -- 6 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 5 1 -- -- -- -- 6 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 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 Gary W. Davis 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 3.83 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.83 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 4 for cases 3.64 3.83 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 4 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.5 wasted time 3.55 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 5 1 -- -- -- -- 6 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 5 1 -- -- -- -- 6 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 Managing court proceedings so that there is 4 1 1 -- -- -- 6 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 Gary W. Davis 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 4 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 4 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 4 outside pressure 3.55 4 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Davis All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Gary W. Davis A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 pressure Being able to identify and 6 -- -- -- -- -- 6 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 Gary W. Davis 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Davis meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Gary W. Davis Yes, meets performance 80% standards No, does not meet 0% performance standards No opinion 20% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Gary W. Davis 22
2014 cycle
- 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Gary W. Davis Kiowa County Courthouse P.O. Box 353 200 East 13th St. Eads, CO 81036 Dear Judge Davis: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Gary W. Davis May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, county judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.45--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.56, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.58, and an average non-attorney grade of 2.90, Judge Gary W. Davis’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.24. Judge Davis Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.24 3.58 2.90 Sample Size - 6 15 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Davis from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Davis’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Davis Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.57 3.88 1 3.26 7 2008 2.25 1 2009 3.26 3.62 2 2.89 5 2010 2.84 3.44 3 2.24 2 Overall 3.24 3.58 6 2.90 15 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 54%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of 1 ## Page 5 jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Davis’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors for each year from 2007 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non- juror grades for all county judges. Judge Davis Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 100 2007 % 3.26 7 % 3.82 3.30 100 2008 % 1.89 1 % 3.82 3.26 100 2009 % 2.89 5 % 3.83 3.22 100 2010 % 2.24 2 % 3.85 3.25 100 All Yrs. % 2.90 15 % 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Davis’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 3 ## Page 7 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 66)) ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 6 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 4.00 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 4.00 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.79 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 17% 83% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.17 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 33% 0% 0% 0% 17% 3.60 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.40 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 40% 20% 0% 0% 0% 40% 3.67 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.67 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.83 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.83 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.62 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.44 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges Sample Size = 6 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 20% 28% Completely neutral 80% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 83% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 88% Total Not Retain 0% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 83% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 17% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 100% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 0% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.58 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.79 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 4.00 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.50 proceedings. 3.44 4.00 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.67 3.39 3.40 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.33 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.17 3.16 3.50 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.60 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.67 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.67 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.67 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges Judge Gary W. Davis 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.62 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.33 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 3.83 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.83 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.50 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 3.44 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.67 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.33 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.33 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 20% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 80% Completely Neutral 50% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain 71% 17% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All Cnty Judge Davis Judges 0% Total Retain 100% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 0% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain 68% 17% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty 0% Judge Davis Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 100% 84% Undecided or DK 0% 5% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 0% 12% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 9 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1155)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 15 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 53% 13% 13% 0% 13% 7% 3.00 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 7% 7% 7% 7% 0% 3.33 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 47% 13% 13% 7% 13% 7% 2.79 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 53% 7% 13% 13% 13% 0% 2.73 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 2.96 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 0% 7% 0% 13% 7% 3.29 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 47% 13% 20% 0% 13% 7% 2.86 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 47% 7% 13% 0% 13% 20% 2.92 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 36% 21% 0% 0% 14% 29% 2.90 3.59 Overall Fairness 2.99 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 53% 27% 7% 0% 13% 0% 3.07 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 47% 20% 7% 7% 7% 13% 3.08 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 53% 13% 13% 0% 13% 7% 3.00 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.05 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 60% 7% 7% 0% 27% 0% 2.73 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 20% 7% 7% 7% 0% 3.20 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 47% 27% 7% 0% 13% 7% 3.00 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 53% 7% 7% 0% 27% 7% 2.64 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 60% 13% 7% 0% 20% 0% 2.93 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 2.90 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 43% 14% 14% 21% 7% 0% 2.64 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 36% 7% 14% 14% 14% 14% 2.42 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 47% 7% 7% 20% 13% 7% 2.57 3.50 Overall Application of Law 2.54 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 2.90 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges Sample Size = 15 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 43% 12% Competely neutral 29% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 28% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.43 0.12 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 34% 12% Competely neutral 67% 77% Lenient sentencing total 0% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 1.17 0.06 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 17% 6% Total Retain 75% 92% Total Not Retain 25% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 53% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 20% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 13% 5% Total Retain 60% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 20% 8% Total Not Retain 20% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.90 Overall Average Grade 3.56 2.96 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.00 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.33 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 2.79 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 2.73 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 2.99 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.29 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 2.86 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 2.92 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 2.90 or her case. 3.59 3.05 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.07 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.08 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.00 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges Judge Gary W. Davis 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.90 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 2.73 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.20 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.00 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 2.64 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 2.93 little wasted time. 3.50 2.54 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 2.64 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 2.42 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.57 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.43 Gary W. Davis 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 1.17 Gary W. Davis 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Gary W. Davis All County Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 Gary W. Davis All County Judges Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 8% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% All Cnty Judge Davis Judges Total Retain 75% 92% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 25% 8% 2% 17% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 53% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 20% All Cnty Undecided 8% Judge Davis Judges Total Retain 60% 85% 7% Undecided 20% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 20% 7% 13% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 15 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 17 ## Page 21 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 18 ## Page 22 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 19 ## Page 23 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 20 ## Page 24 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 21 ## Page 25 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 22 ## Page 26 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Davis is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non- attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 23 ## Page 27 Judge Gary W. Davis Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4 2 0 0 2 50.0% Defense Attorneys 5 1 0 0 4 80.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 5 5 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 15 9 0 0 6 40.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Defendant 94 49 36 1 8 13.8% Civil Litigant 18 8 4 0 6 42.9% Witness 5 2 2 0 1 33.3% Employees 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 119 59 44 1 15 20.0% Grand Total: 134 68 44 1 21 23.3% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 25 ## Page 29 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 34 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 35 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 36 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 37 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 38 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
- 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Gary W. Davis Kiowa County Courthouse P.O. Box 353 Eads, CO 81036 Dear Judge Davis: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Gary W. Davis received an overall combined average grade of 3.24 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.18, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.29, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Davis Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.24 3.18 3.29 Sample Size - 6 10 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Davis’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Davis Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 2.84 3.44 3 2.24 2 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.28 3.00 3 3.55 8 Overall 3.24 3.18 6 3.29 10 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Davis’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Davis Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 0.00 0 0% 3.29 10 100% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 66)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 6 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 67% 3.00 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 17% 50% 33% 0% 0% 0% 2.83 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 17% 50% 0% 0% 0% 33% 3.25 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.15 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 17% 50% 33% 0% 0% 0% 2.83 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 17% 67% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3.00 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 17% 67% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3.00 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 17% 67% 0% 0% 0% 17% 3.20 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.01 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 67% 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 33% 17% 17% 0% 0% 33% 3.25 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 0% 67% 17% 0% 17% 0% 2.33 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.83 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 50% 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.29 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 17% 50% 33% 0% 0% 0% 2.83 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.16 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.18 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 33% 25% Completely neutral 50% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 17% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 0% 55% Recommend retain 67% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 0% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 33% 7% Total Retain 67% 78% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 33% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.18 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.15 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.00 case after trial. 3.50 2.83 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.25 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.50 3.37 3.01 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 2.83 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.00 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.00 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 3.20 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.38 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.50 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.25 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Gary W. Davis 555 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.29 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 2.33 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.83 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.67 neutral manner. 3.20 3.33 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.16 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.33 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.83 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.33 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 33% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 50% Completely Neutral 51% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 17% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Gary W. Davis All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 666 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? 0% Strongly recommend retain 55% 67% Recommend retain 23% 0% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Davis Judges* Total Retain 67% 78% 0% Neither 0% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 33% 13% 33% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 777 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1100)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 10 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 50% 30% 10% 10% 0% 0% 3.20 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 70% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 10% 20% 0% 10% 0% 3.10 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 0% 10% 20% 0% 0% 3.20 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.25 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 0% 10% 10% 0% 0% 3.50 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 3.40 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 60% 10% 10% 10% 0% 10% 3.33 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 10% 10% 0% 0% 10% 3.67 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.48 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 70% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 3.40 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 10% 0% 10% 0% 0% 3.60 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 60% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 3.30 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.43 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 60% 10% 20% 0% 10% 0% 3.10 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 70% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 70% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 60% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 3.00 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 60% 10% 30% 0% 0% 0% 3.30 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.32 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 50% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 2.90 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 0% 10% 0% 20% 0% 3.00 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 60% 10% 10% 0% 20% 0% 2.90 3.50 Overall Application of Law 2.93 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11900 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 28% 11% Competely neutral 71% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.71 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 14% 10% Competely neutral 71% 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.29 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% 68% Recommend retain 13% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 0% 6% Recommend not retain 13% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 5% Total Retain 88% 86% Neither 0% 6% Total Not Retain 13% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 111110 ## Page 14 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.29 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.25 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.20 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.50 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.10 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.20 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.48 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.50 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.40 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.33 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.67 or her case. 3.60 3.43 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.40 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.60 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.30 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Gary W. Davis 111221 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.32 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.10 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.60 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.60 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.00 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.30 little wasted time. 3.51 2.93 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 2.90 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.00 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.90 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.71 Gary W. Davis 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.29 Gary W. Davis -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Gary W. Davis All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111332 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? 75% Strongly recommend retain 68% 13% Recommend retain 18% 0% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Davis Judges* 13% Total Retain 88% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 0% 6% Total Not Retain 13% 8% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111443 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 111885 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The 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 last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 111996 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 221007 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 221118 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Davis is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 221229 ## Page 23 Judge Gary W. Davis Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Defense Attorneys 8 1 3 0 4 80.0% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 4 4 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 14 5 3 0 6 54.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 2 1 1 0 0 0.0% Defendant 25 7 14 0 4 36.4% Civil Litigant 9 5 1 0 3 37.5% Witness 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Other 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Employees, including Interpreters 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 41 15 16 0 10 40.0% Grand Total: 55 20 19 0 16 44.4% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 222330 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
2010 cycle
- 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Gary W. Davis Kiowa County Courthouse P.O. Box 353 200 East 13th St. Eads, CO 81036 Dear Judge Davis: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Gary W. Davis September 24, 2009 Page 2 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 ext 1, 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 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 33)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 3 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.48 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.36 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.92 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.58 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.59 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.67 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.23 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.67 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.70 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges Sample Size = 3 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 30% Completely neutral 100% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 0% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 67% 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 33% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 86% Total Not Retain 0% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 67% 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 33% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 0% 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.70 Overall Average Grade 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.92 3.40 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 4.00 case after trial. 3.48 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.67 proceedings. 3.40 4.00 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4.00 3.35 3.58 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.33 relevant facts. 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.33 3.15 3.67 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 4.00 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.20 3.59 Q3. Overall Communication 3.36 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.67 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.50 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.23 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges J20u09d Ingtereim GJudaicriayl P eWrfor.m Dancae vSuirsvey 4 ## Page 8 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.67 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.67 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.40 3.67 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.67 in a neutral manner. 3.20 3.67 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.23 3.67 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.67 releveant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.67 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.23 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.67 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 100% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 33% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Cnty Judge Davis Judges 0% Total Retain 100% 86% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 0% 14% 7% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain in office 66% 33% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Cnty 0% Judge Davis Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 100% 81% Undecided 0% 5% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 0% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 99)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 9 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 11% 0% 0% 11% 11% 3.38 3.52 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 78% 11% 0% 0% 11% 0% 3.44 3.53 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 56% 11% 0% 11% 11% 11% 3.00 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 67% 11% 0% 11% 11% 0% 3.11 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.23 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 0% 0% 0% 11% 11% 3.50 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 56% 11% 11% 0% 11% 11% 3.12 3.43 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 44% 11% 11% 0% 11% 22% 3.00 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 33% 22% 0% 0% 11% 33% 3.00 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.16 3.48 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 67% 22% 0% 0% 11% 0% 3.33 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 44% 22% 0% 0% 11% 22% 3.14 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 67% 0% 11% 0% 11% 11% 3.25 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.24 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 78% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 3.11 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 11% 11% 0% 11% 0% 3.22 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 11% 11% 0% 11% 11% 3.12 3.50 4d. Being prepared for cases. 67% 11% 0% 0% 22% 0% 3.00 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 11% 0% 0% 22% 0% 3.00 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.09 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 50% 25% 0% 25% 0% 0% 3.00 3.41 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 38% 12% 12% 12% 0% 25% 3.00 3.43 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 11% 0% 22% 0% 11% 3.12 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.04 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.15 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges Sample Size = 9 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 40% 14% Competely neutral 40% 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 20% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.2 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 25% 16% Competely neutral 75% 73% Lenient sentencing total 0% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 1 0.15 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 0% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 12% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 12% 7% Total Retain 75% 90% Total Not Retain 24% 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 67% 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 0% 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 11% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 11% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 11% 6% Total Retain 67% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 11% 9% Total Not Retain 22% 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.15 Overall Average Grade 3.49 3.23 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.38 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.52 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.44 3.53 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.00 manner. 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.11 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.39 3.16 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.48 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.50 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.12 case without bias. 3.43 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.00 themselves. 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.00 or her case. 3.52 3.24 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.61 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.33 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.14 understand. 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.25 can hear what's being said. 3.65 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2J00u9 dIntgeriem JGudaiciarly P eWrform. aDncea Svuirvsey 10 ## Page 14 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.09 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.11 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.22 proceedings. 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.12 3.50 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.00 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.00 little wasted time. 3.43 3.04 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.00 3.41 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.00 possible outside pressure. 3.43 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.12 relevant facts. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.20 Gary W. Davis 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 1.00 Gary W. Davis 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Gary W. Davis All County Judges Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 0% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Davis Judges Total Retain 75% 90% 12% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 24% 10% 3% 12% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 0% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 11% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Davis Judges Total Retain 67% 82% 11% Undecided 11% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 22% 9% 11% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning county judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in County Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Davis. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table on page below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non- attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Davis is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Gary W. Davis Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Defense Attorneys 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 5 2 0 0 3 60.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 57 34 19 0 4 10.5% Civil Litigant 14 6 3 0 5 45.5% Total Non-attorneys 71 40 22 0 9 18.4% Grand Total: 76 42 22 0 12 22.2% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total Other 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 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 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. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not 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 judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all county judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all county judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all county judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2909 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 6% 2% 1% 24% 3.48 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 25% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 4% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 26% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 18% 11% 7% 4% 27% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 24% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 29% 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 19% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 20% 11% 7% 4% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 26% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 24% 10% 5% 3% 10% 3.23 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2909 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 97% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 11374 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.47 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 18% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 15% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.43 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.42 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.48 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 17% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.61 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 16% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 60% 22% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 17% 6% 2% 2% 13% 3.50 4d.Being prepared for cases. 67% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.54 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.41 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 57% 13% 5% 3% 4% 18% 3.43 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 16% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 11374 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 16% Competely neutral 73% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.15 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
- 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Gary W. Davis Kiowa County Courthouse P.O. Box 353 200 East 13th St. Eads, CO 81036 Dear Judge Davis: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, and second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Gary W. Davis March 30, 2010 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Gary W. Davis an overall average grade1 of 3.70, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Davis an overall average grade of 2.83 resulting in a combined grade of 3.27. The average combined grade for all county judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.41. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Davis Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.27 3.70 2.83 Sample Size - 3 11 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Davis’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Davis Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Score2 Average Score Average Score 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.57 2.86 3.88 3.62 3.26 1.89 2.09 Sample Size - - - 1 0 2 7 1 3 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 County judges who were appointed between 2007 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 47%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.82, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Davis’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county Judge Davis Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 2.83 Percent of Sample 0% 100% Sample Size 0 11 County Judge Average 3.82 3.26 Table 3 judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Davis’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 33)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 3 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.92 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.33 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.04 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.58 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.59 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.67 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.26 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.67 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.70 3.31 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges Sample Size = 3 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 29% Completely neutral 100% 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 33% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 87% Total Not Retain 0% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 33% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 0% 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.70 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.92 3.42 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 4.00 case after trial. 3.49 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.67 proceedings. 3.43 4.00 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4.00 3.37 3.58 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.33 relevant facts. 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.33 3.13 3.67 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 4.00 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.24 3.59 Q3. Overall Communication 3.38 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.67 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.50 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges J20u10d Jugdiecia Gl Pearforryma Wnce .S uDrveay vRiesport 6 ## Page 10 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.67 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.67 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.42 3.67 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.38 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.67 in a neutral manner. 3.23 3.67 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.67 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.67 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.67 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.67 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.37 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 100% Completely Neutral 48% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain 71% 33% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Judge Davis Judges 0% Total Retain 100% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 0% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain 67% 33% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Cnty 0% Judge Davis Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 100% 82% Undecided or DK 0% 5% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 0% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Gary W. Davis All County Sample Size = 11 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gary W. Davis Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 55% 9% 9% 0% 18% 9% 2.90 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 9% 0% 9% 9% 0% 3.27 3.55 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 45% 18% 0% 9% 18% 9% 2.70 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 55% 9% 9% 9% 18% 0% 2.73 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 2.90 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 0% 0% 0% 18% 9% 3.20 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 45% 9% 18% 0% 18% 9% 2.70 3.46 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 45% 9% 9% 0% 18% 18% 2.78 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 36% 18% 0% 0% 18% 27% 2.75 3.55 Overall Fairness 2.86 3.51 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 55% 27% 0% 0% 18% 0% 3.00 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 36% 18% 9% 9% 9% 18% 2.78 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 55% 9% 9% 0% 18% 9% 2.90 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 2.89 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 64% 9% 0% 0% 27% 0% 2.82 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 64% 9% 9% 9% 9% 0% 3.09 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 9% 9% 0% 18% 9% 2.90 3.52 4d. Being prepared for cases. 64% 9% 0% 0% 27% 0% 2.82 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 9% 0% 0% 27% 0% 2.82 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 2.89 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 40% 20% 10% 20% 10% 0% 2.60 3.44 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 30% 10% 10% 20% 10% 20% 2.38 3.47 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 45% 9% 0% 27% 9% 9% 2.60 3.45 Overall Application of Law 2.53 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 2.83 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Gary W. Davis All County Gary W. Davis Judges Sample Size = 11 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 34% 14% Competely neutral 33% 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 34% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.67 0.14 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 40% 13% Competely neutral 60% 74% Lenient sentencing total 0% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 1.40 0.11 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 60% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 10% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 20% 6% Total Retain 70% 91% Total Not Retain 30% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 55% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 18% 6% Total Retain 64% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 9% Total Not Retain 27% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.83 Overall Average Grade 3.52 2.90 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2.90 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.27 3.55 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 2.70 manner. 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 2.73 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 2.86 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.51 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.20 heard. 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the 2.70 case without bias. 3.46 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 2.78 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 2.75 or her case. 3.55 2.89 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.00 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.60 3b. Using language that everyone can 2.78 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 2.90 can hear what's being said. 3.66 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2J01u0 dJugdiceia l GPeraforrmya nWce S. uDrveay Rveipsort 12 ## Page 16 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.89 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.51 2.82 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.09 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.90 3.52 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 2.82 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 2.82 little wasted time. 3.45 2.53 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.45 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 2.60 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 2.38 possible outside pressure. 3.47 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.60 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.67 Gary W. Davis 0.14 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 1.40 Gary W. Davis 0.11 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Gary W. Davis All County Judges Judge Gary W. Davis Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Davis Judges Total Retain 70% 91% 10% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 30% 9% 3% 20% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 55% Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 9% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Davis Judges Total Retain 64% 83% 9% Undecided 9% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 27% 9% 18% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gary W. Davis All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14 ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a 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 2010 reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, 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. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. 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. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of 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 judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Davis is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non- attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all county judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Judge Gary W. Davis Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3 2 0 0 1 33.3% Defense Attorneys 3 1 0 0 2 66.7% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 7 4 0 0 3 42.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 78 47 25 1 5 9.4% Civil Litigant 15 7 3 0 5 41.7% Witness 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Employees 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 96 54 30 1 11 16.7% Grand Total: 103 58 30 1 14 19.2% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1275 876 39 2 358 29.0% Defense Attorneys 5161 3380 119 9 1653 32.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 24 10 6 0 8 44.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1440 812 73 2 553 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 660 431 36 1 192 30.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role 26 9 6 0 11 55.0% Total Attorneys 8586 5518 279 14 2775 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 4952 2734 1069 81 1068 28.1% Defendant 26197 14235 9044 287 2631 15.6% Victim 238 163 68 4 3 1.8% Witness 2737 1497 815 111 314 17.3% Other 1604 976 436 17 175 15.2% Civil Litigant 7606 4092 1996 111 1407 25.6% Witness 413 247 78 7 81 24.7% Other 104 74 17 0 13 14.9% Total Non-attorneys 43851 24018 13523 618 5692 18.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 10350 4609 590 201 4950 51.8% Employees 277 119 36 29 93 43.9% Total Other 10627 4728 626 230 5043 50.4% Total 63064 34264 14428 862 13510 27.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. None of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2775 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 6% 2% 1% 25% 3.49 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 11% 5% 2% 4% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 23% 12% 6% 4% 9% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 19% 10% 6% 4% 23% 3.04 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 23% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 28% 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 18% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 20% 10% 7% 4% 1% 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 3% 6% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 24% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 10% 3.26 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2775 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% Completely neutral 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 10735 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.50 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 4% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.55 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.46 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.51 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 15% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 61% 22% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3.39 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.52 4d.Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.56 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 17% 6% 3% 3% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 4% 2% 4% 18% 3.47 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 10735 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.14 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.11 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 91% Total Not Retain 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
2006 cycle
- 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee GGaarryy WW.. DDaavviiss 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable Gary W. Davis Kiowa County Courthouse 200 East 13th St. Eads, CO 81036 Dear Judge Davis: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 April, 26 2006 The Honorable Gary W. Davis Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.2 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 4.0 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 4.0 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.2 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Gary W. Davis County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.4 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 4.0 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 4.0 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.0 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.3 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.0 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.5 3.0 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Gary W. Davis County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.2 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.3 3.0 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.3 3.0 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 4.0 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.0 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.0 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.4 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.0 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 4.0 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.0 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.4 3.0 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 4.0 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 4.0 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 4.0 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 4.0 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 4.0 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 4.0 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 4.0 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.5 4.0 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 4.0 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 4.0 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 4.0 4f. Being consistent in 3.4 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 4.0 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.4 4.0 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 4.0 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 4.0 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 4.0 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.5 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.3 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.0 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.4 3.0 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.3 3.0 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.3 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 4.0 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.4 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Davis is toward the defense or prosecution? Gary W. Davis 0 County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Davis's sentences? Gary W. Davis 0 County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 120% 100% 100% 100% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 60% 40% 20% 14%14% 13%13% 5%5% 5% 5%5% 5% 4% 4%4% 4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Davis Including Undecided C o u n t y J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 56% B 21% 21% C 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 100% 19% 17% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Beginning court on time?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 53% 56% B 29% 28% C 11% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 4.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 52% 51% B 30% 29% C 10% 11% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 4.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 53% B 100% 31% 31% C 9% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Davis on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 28% 27% B 17% 18% C 5% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 100% 47% 43% Average 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 63% B 100% 26% 25% C 8% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 44% B 25% 25% C 7% 8% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 100% 24% 19% Average 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 48% B 21% 21% C 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 100% 26% 24% Average 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 50% B 100% 29% 30% C 8% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 8% 6% Average 3.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 53% B 100% 28% 27% C 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.0 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 57% B 100% 26% 25% C 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 28% B 13% 15% C 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 100% 58% 48% Average 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 30% 29% B 19% 20% C 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 34% 33% Average 4.0 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 52% B 100% 31% 30% C 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 55% 58% B 100% 29% 27% C 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 53% 57% B 100% 29% 27% C 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Davis on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 38% 33% B 23% 20% C 6% 6% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 29% 37% Average 4.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 53% B 100% 22% 22% C 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 12% 12% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 54% B 100% 23% 22% C 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 14% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Speaking clearly?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 72% 73% B 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% Average 4.0 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 71% 71% B 20% 20% C 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Using understandable language?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 73% 74% B 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 66% 69% B 22% 20% C 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% Average 4.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 69% 70% B 17% 17% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 58% 59% B 23% 22% C 8% 9% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 4.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 66% 69% B 20% 18% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 62% 63% B 20% 19% C 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 63% 64% B 22% 21% C 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 62% 63% B 20% 19% C 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 68% 69% B 20% 19% C 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 58% 59% B 24% 23% C 8% 8% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 4.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 60% 63% B 16% 15% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 16% 16% Average 4.0 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 56% 52% B 15% 13% C 4% 4% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 21% 28% Average 4.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 52% B 100% 25% 23% C 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 12% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 53% B 100% 28% 27% C 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.0 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 49% 53% B 100% 28% 26% C 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 7% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 100% 50% 53% B 22% 21% C 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 17% 15% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 39% 41% B 16% 16% C 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 100% 38% 36% Average 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Davis is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 4% 3% 4 5% 5% 3 7% 7% 2 12% 11% 1 19% 18% 100% 47% 47% -1 3% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 0.9 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Davis are? Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 3% 4% 3 5% 5% 2 8% 9% 1 15% 15% 100% 58% 55% -1 2% 3% -2 2% 3% -3 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 1% Average 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 100% 76% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 14% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 56 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 2.5 Overall Average 3.4 3.5 2.4 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 2.5 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 2.5 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 2.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 2.5 Q5. Overall Application 3.4 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Gary W. Davis County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 57 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 2.4 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 2.4 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 2.4 1b. Treating participants 3.5 politely and with respect 3.5 2.2 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.5 2.4 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 58 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 2.5 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 2.8 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 2.2 2b. Treating those involved 3.4 with the case without bias 3.5 2.6 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.4 2.4 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 59 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 2.5 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 2.8 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 2.6 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.6 2.2 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 60 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 2.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 2.6 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.3 2.6 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.6 2.8 4c. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.5 2.4 4d. Being prepared for 3.5 [his/her] cases 3.6 2.4 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.4 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 61 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 2.5 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.4 2.8 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 2.4 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 outside pressure 3.5 2.2 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Gary W. Davis County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 62 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Davis is toward the defense or prosecution? Gary W. Davis -0.3 County Judges 0.2 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 63 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Davis's sentences? Gary W. Davis -0.3 County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 64 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 82% 79% 80% 75% 72% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 7% 6%6% 6% 3%3% 3%3% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S Judge Davis S County Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 65 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 65% 69% B 40% 23% 20% C 20% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 20% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 66 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 69% 72% B 18% 17% C 40% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 20% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 67 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 66% 70% B 20% 19% 17% C 40% 6% 5% D 4% 3% Fail 20% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 68 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 62% 66% B 20% 20% 18% C 7% 6% D 20% 4% 3% Fail 20% 5% 5% No Grade 2% 2% Average 2.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 69 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 60% 68% 71% B 17% 16% C 20% 6% 5% D 3% 3% Fail 20% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 2% Average 2.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 70 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 66% 69% B 40% 17% 16% C 6% 5% D 20% 4% 3% Fail 20% 5% 4% No Grade 3% 3% Average 2.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 71 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 51% 49% B 20% 13% 11% C 20% 5% 4% D 3% 2% Fail 20% 4% 4% No Grade 25% 30% Average 2.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 72 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 65% 68% B 20% 17% 16% C 6% 5% D 20% 3% 2% Fail 20% 4% 3% No Grade 6% 5% Average 2.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 73 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 70% 73% B 40% 18% 16% C 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 20% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 74 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 71% 74% B 20% 19% 18% C 6% 5% D 40% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 75 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 73% 75% B 17% 16% C 20% 6% 5% D 20% 2% 1% Fail 20% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.2 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 76 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 52% 55% B 26% 26% C 40% 11% 10% D 20% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 4% 3% Average 2.6 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 77 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 69% 72% B 20% 20% 18% C 20% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 20% 2% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 2.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 78 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 56% 58% B 20% 20% 19% C 20% 7% 6% D 20% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 13% 12% Average 2.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 79 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 63% 67% B 40% 19% 17% C 20% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 20% 3% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average 2.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 80 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 59% 61% B 40% 23% 23% C 20% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 20% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average 2.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 81 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 59% 62% B 20% 19% 18% C 20% 7% 6% D 20% 3% 3% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 7% 7% Average 2.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 82 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 40% 55% 58% B 20% 16% 14% C 5% 5% D 20% 3% 2% Fail 20% 4% 3% No Grade 17% 17% Average 2.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 83 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Davis on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 60% 64% B 40% 18% 16% C 6% 5% D 20% 3% 3% Fail 20% 5% 4% No Grade 8% 8% Average 2.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 84 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Davis is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 3% 2% 4 25% 2% 1% 3 3% 2% 2 3% 3% 1 6% 5% 50% 75% 78% -1 3% 3% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 1% -4 1% 1% -5 25% 2% 2% Average -0.3 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 85 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Davis are? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 4% 3% 4 25% 2% 2% 3 2% 2% 2 3% 3% 1 4% 4% 50% 69% 71% -1 5% 5% -2 4% 4% -3 2% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 25% 2% 2% Average -0.3 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 86 Gary W. Davis Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 25% 79% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 25% 10% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 25% 3% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 25% 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2006. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in October 2005, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2006 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. 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. 1 ## Page 89 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% 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: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 90 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. 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. 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 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. 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. 3 ## Page 91 Gary W. Davis Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 1 1 0 0 0 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 2 0 2 0 0 0.0% Sub Total: 3 1 2 0 0 33.3% Defendant 53 4 34 15 0 10.5% Plaintiff 1 0 0 1 0 0.0% Employee 1 1 0 0 0 100.0% Sub Total: 55 5 34 16 0 12.8% Grand Total: 58 6 36 16 0 14.3% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name of Judge] _ _ 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 not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ DK 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 93 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 advice, what would you say? h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ DK 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ___________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being ___________________________________________________________ prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 94 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office............................ 4 [Name of Judge] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation............. 3 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office..................... 2 Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Name] ? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 95 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? b. Maintaining appropriate control over _ proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Being prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ b. Willing to make decision without regard to _ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2002 cycle
- 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Gary W. Davis P.O. Box 353 200 East 13th St. Eads, CO 81036 Dear Judge Davis: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. 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 non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. 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 non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Gary W. Davis Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, 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: ## Page 3 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Davis on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 64% 65% B 44% 22% 21% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Davis on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 64% 61% B 44% 20% 22% C 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Davis on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 55% 48% B 33% 17% 14% C 11% 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 11% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 67% 63% B 22% 15% 12% C 11% 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 11% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.5 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 69% 66% B 22% 16% 14% C 11% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 8% 12% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 70% 66% B 22% 14% 13% C 11% 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 10% 15% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 66% 65% B 22% 15% 13% C 11% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 10% 13% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Davis on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 60% 60% B 22% 18% 17% C 9% 8% D 11% 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 4% 5% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 58% 51% B 22% 14% 11% C 11% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 11% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Davis on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 56% 59% B 11% 15% 12% C 11% 6% 4% D 11% 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 18% 21% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Davis on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 29% 37% B 33% 22% 23% C 11% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 22% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Davis on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 51% 54% B 33% 30% 28% C 10% 9% D 11% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Davis on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 53% 54% B 22% 27% 26% C 11% 10% 9% D 11% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 11% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.1 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Davis on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 62% 64% B 22% 21% 21% C 11% 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Davis on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 57% 57% B 22% 22% 22% C 11% 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Davis on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 47% 46% B 22% 27% 27% C 22% 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 11% 8% 8% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Davis on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 51% 54% B 33% 27% 28% C 11% 11% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Davis on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 53% 54% B 44% 24% 25% C 11% 11% 10% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Davis on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 56% 58% B 44% 25% 23% C 11% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Davis on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 48% 49% B 22% 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 22% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Davis on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 35% 33% B 11% 14% 13% C 11% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 44% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Davis on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 47% 53% B 33% 28% 25% C 33% 12% 9% D 11% 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 2.7 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Davis on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 48% 49% B 44% 24% 25% C 11% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 11% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Davis on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 40% 44% B 56% 30% 29% C 13% 12% D 11% 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 11% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.0 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Davis on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 49% 50% B 44% 21% 20% C 11% 9% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 14% 15% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Gary W. Davis Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 89% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 11% 11% 11% No opinion 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Davis on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 65% 67% B 23% 20% 19% C 14% 7% 6% D 11% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 10% 4% 4% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Davis on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 49% 47% B 17% 16% 15% C 13% 6% 5% D 9% 2% 2% Fail 7% 3% 2% No Grade 16% 24% 30% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 63% 65% B 21% 15% 14% C 4% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 24% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.2 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 65% 67% B 21% 16% 16% C 9% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 20% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 64% 67% B 21% 16% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 23% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 64% 66% B 23% 16% 15% C 9% 5% 5% D 9% 2% 2% Fail 11% 3% 3% No Grade 14% 10% 9% Average Grade 2.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Davis on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 63% 65% B 21% 16% 16% C 10% 6% 5% D 10% 3% 2% Fail 9% 4% 4% No Grade 16% 8% 7% Average Grade 2.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Davis on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 45% 43% B 20% 13% 12% C 11% 5% 4% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 7% 4% 3% No Grade 21% 31% 37% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Davis on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 24% 60% 63% B 19% 16% 16% C 10% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 40% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Davis on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 68% 70% B 27% 20% 19% C 14% 6% 6% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 7% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Davis on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 67% 69% B 21% 19% 18% C 20% 6% 6% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 4% 4% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Davis on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 69% 72% B 21% 17% 16% C 13% 6% 5% D 9% 2% 2% Fail 6% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Davis on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 64% 66% B 24% 18% 17% C 10% 6% 5% D 10% 3% 2% Fail 10% 4% 3% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Davis on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 55% 56% B 26% 23% 22% C 14% 9% 8% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 9% 3% 2% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average Grade 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Davis on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 55% 57% B 23% 23% 23% C 13% 9% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 9% 3% 2% No Grade 9% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Davis on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 61% 64% B 23% 19% 18% C 9% 7% 6% D 9% 2% 2% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Davis on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 60% 62% B 20% 17% 16% C 8% 6% 5% D 6% 3% 2% Fail 16% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 10% 11% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Davis on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 64% 67% B 20% 17% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 10% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Davis on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 60% 62% B 25% 19% 18% C 8% 6% 6% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 10% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 11% 10% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Davis on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 36% 53% 55% B 17% 15% 14% C 11% 5% 5% D 11% 2% 2% Fail 9% 3% 3% No Grade 16% 21% 22% Average Grade 2.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Gary W. Davis Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Davis be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Davis Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 57% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 23% 9% 8% No opinion 20% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 15 Page 21 ## Page 50 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 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. 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 the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores 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 Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 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 non-attorney. 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. 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 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. 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. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Gary W. Davis Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 3 2 1 66.7% Attorney For Defendant 13 6 4 1 2 60.0% Attorney for Plaintiff 1 1 100.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 17 9 5 1 2 64.3% Law Enforcement 19 6 4 4 5 60.0% Social Services Caseworker Employee 1 1 100.0% Defendant 192 40 80 62 10 33.3% Plaintiff 36 14 12 3 7 53.8% Juror Victim 13 4 5 3 1 44.4% Other 19 5 4 5 5 55.6% Sub Total: 280 70 105 77 28 40.0% Total: 297 79 110 78 30 41.8% 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 Judicial District 15

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2006 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
1998 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
1994 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026