← All judges

J. E. DeVilbiss

Trial Court · Garfield · Garfield

No Opinion2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 1996 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Garfield · Garfield
    No Opinion
    Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: No Opinion Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: THE COMMISSION IS EVENLY DIVIDED; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO OPINION. There is a division on the retention of District Jude Judson E. DeVilbiss. Six members of the Commission participated in the deliberation. Three voted in favor and three against retaining Judge DeVilbiss. Of the attorneys responding to questionnaires, 24 attorneys or 58.5% of those responding recommended Judge DeVilbiss be retained and 17 attorneys, or 41.5% recommended he not be retained. The division is more strongly expressed on written comments from attorneys. The Commission believes that the critical issue in in Judge DeVilbiss’ delay in ruling on motions and in rendering written opinions in civil cases. On the civil side of Judge DeVilbiss’ duties, there is a strongly expressed criticism which cannot be ignored: “It takes him months and years to make rulings…” On the favorable side, there appears to be general agreement that Judge DeVilbiss is a knowledgeable and fair judge and that he runs his courtroom well and in a competent manner. From the responses, it appears that he is especially caring and competent in juvenile cases and in criminal cases. One comment: “He is extremely fair to criminal defendants, especially in imposing sentence, and makes a special effort for those who do not understand English well or appear pro se…” (without an attorney). There is no criticism from attorneys or from law enforcement personnel that Judge DeVilbiss is too lenient in sentencing. Another comment: “I think that this judge is particularly capable in the criminal sentencing process…” Another comment: “Our firm has had pending motions ready for action sitting for 18 months - 2 years awaiting action. No amount of prodding seems to expedite rulings…” The comments of this Judicial Performance Commission from six years ago, in 1990, were similar.  In that recommendation it was stated: “Overall, the only pervasive criticism of DeVilbiss came in the area of delay in the handling of civil cases, particularly with regard to decisions concerning pretrial motions. On the other hand, many saw DeVilbiss’ handling of juvenile and child custody cases as his strongest point.” In conference with the Commission, Judge DeVilbiss acknowledged his failure to render prompt decisions in civil cases and expressed his determination to clear up the backlog by fall. The Commission is aware of Judge DeVilbiss’ ability in the past to overcome diversity. The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance is evenly divided and therefore cannot make no recommendation on the retention of Judge DeVilbiss.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Garfield · Garfield
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge DeVilbiss graduated from the University of Texas in 1957, received his law degree from the same institution in 1965, and was admitted to the Texas Bar. He was admitted to the Colorado Bar in 1970. He began the practice of law as a staff attorney with the Texas Securities Commission. He then was employed by Travis County, Austin, Texas, first as a deputy district attorney and then as a deputy county attorney. In 1970, he moved to Colorado and became a deputy district attorney in the Ninth Judicial District. Shortly thereafter, he went into private practice in Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Concurrently, from 1972 to 1976, he served as an associate County Court judge in Garfield County. He is presently serving as a district judge in the Ninth Judicial District and has done so since 1976. In his present position, he hears a general civil, criminal, domestic relations and juvenile caseload. The results of the survey of attorneys, law enforcement agents, litigants, jurors and staff, regarding DeVilbiss’ performance were generally very positive. Attorneys responding to the survey had the most written comments. Those who praised DeVilbiss often used superlatives, particularly with regard to his qualities as a superior trial judge, his compassion and his concern for people. Those who criticized DeVilbiss were equally emphatic, particularly in the area of DeVilbiss’ attitude and demeanor. Overall, the only pervasive criticism of DeVilbiss came in the area of delay in the handling of civil cases, particularly with regard to decisions concerning pretrial motions. On the other hand, many saw DeVilbiss’ handling of juvenile and child custody cases as his strongest point. Written comments for law enforcement were similar to the attorney comments, with high praise for the judge’s perceptiveness and understanding of human issues, particularly in juvenile and criminal cases. Jurors, staff and litigants who responded to the surveys were virtually unanimous in their support of DeVilbiss. DeVilbiss acknowledges that there does exist a problem in connection with the prompt handling of civil matters. Although ultimately he accepts responsibility for the problem, he also feels criminal, juvenile and domestic cases should take priority and that additional staffing from the state judicial department might help. He also pointed out that his job requires a considerable amount of travel to Aspen, Glenwood Springs and Meeker. Overall, DeVilbiss is viewed as a highly competent and effective district judge.

Surveys & reports

No survey reports on record for this judge.

Sources