Paul R. Dunkelman

Evaluation history

• 2022 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 78.7% yes

  24,397 yes · 6,595 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance by a unanimous vote of 10-0 vote recommends that District Judge Paul R. Dunkelman MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Dunkelman was appointed to the District Court bench in December 2013. He was appointed as Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District in October 2021 on an interim basis and in February 2022 on permanent basis. Judge Dunkelman presided over a mixed docket of felony criminal, civil, domestic relations, mental health, and juvenile delinquency cases this term. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Dunkelman has demonstrated he meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories. Judge Dunkelman received consistently positive reviews in his surveys from attorneys and non-attorneys. Judge Dunkelman is held in high regard by the Commission, as well as the attorneys and non-attorneys that appear before him. He is proud to serve, enjoys his work and strives to improve his performance by participating in continuing legal education and keeping current with changes in the laws. He has created programs focused on educating other judges and is engaged in his local community and bar associations. The Commission notes that Judge Dunkelman routinely reflects on his real-world experiences to grow as a judge. He acclimated quickly in his new role as chief judge to preserve the administration of justice and is taking strides to elevate the bench as a whole in the Fifth Judicial District. The Commission finds his writing and decisions easy to read, concise, and exceptionally well-written. The Commission conducted a personal interview with the Judge, reviewed opinions he wrote, observed him in court, looked at a case management report, interviewed the Public Defender, District Attorney, and law enforcement and considered surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys in 2021-2022. Of attorneys who completed the survey, 96% found he meets performance standards, and 4% had no opinion. Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 86% found he meets performance standards and 14% found he did not.
• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 75.5% yes

  26,839 yes · 8,727 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Reports (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Reports (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends 9-0 with one member absent that Judge Paul R. Dunkelman BE RETAINED. This is Judge Dunkelman’s first performance review since being appointed to the Fifth Judicial District Court in 2013.  Prior to his appointment, Judge Dunkelman was in private practice with the law firm of Carlson, Carlson and Dunkelman, LLC with a focus in family, criminal, civil and business law.  In addition to his private practice Judge Dunkelman was also an adjunct professor at Colorado Mountain College and the Town Prosecutor for the Town of Leadville.  Judge Dunkelman earned his undergraduate degree from Colgate University and his law degree from the Sturm College of Law, University of Denver.  Despite his relatively short time on the bench Judge Dunkelman is already being recognized as one of Colorado’s best District Court judges, winning the 2014-2015 Judicial Officer of the Year for the Fifth Judicial District and being nominated for the 2015 Judicial Excellence Award by the State Judicial Department.  Judge Dunkelman believes community involvement is also important in his role as District Court Judge.  His recent community involvement included working on the planning committee and faculty for the Domestic Relations Institute and volunteering as a Mock Trial Judge for the Mock Trial Western Slope Regional Tournament. The Commission had a very high opinion of Judge Dunkelman and that opinion is obviously shared by those who appear in Judge Dunkelman’s courtroom.  The Commission reviewed survey results of attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared in Judge Dunkelman’s court, survey results from appellate judges, interviewed Judge Dunkelman and reviewed three of the Judge’s written opinions, as well as his self-evaluation.  Members of the Commission also observed Judge Dunkelman in court.  Of the twenty-five attorneys completing the survey, 100% recommended retention.  Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 91% recommended retention, 5% recommended against retention, and 5% expressed no opinion.  (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding).  Judge Dunkelman’s survey results, from attorneys and non-attorneys, also revealed an overall combined average rating well above that of the combined rating of all district judges standing for retention in every category including case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, diligence, demeanor and fairness. The written comments given in the surveys further support the recommendation to retain Judge Dunkelman.  His reported strengths far outweighed and outnumbered any reported weaknesses. Attorneys described Judge Dunkelman as “thorough, kind, even mannered and prepared.” Others commented that Judge Dunkelman is an “excellent new judge,” that he has an “intimate knowledge of the law,” and that he is “fair, impartial and extremely smart.” Non-attorneys gave similar responses, describing Judge Dunkelman as calm, professional, patient and observant. Non-attorneys also gave the judge a very high rating in the category of “Communications,” stating that “he made the unfamiliar courtroom experience less intimidating for all the participants” and that “he is excellent at making sure everyone understands the proceedings.”

Surveys & reports

• 2022 cycle
  • 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Paul Dunkelman 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Survey of Appellate Judges .14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Dunkelman, 51 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 51 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 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 96% 93% 85% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 11% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 0% Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Dunkelman Dunkelman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 93% 82% 96% 85% standards No, does not meet performance 4% 12% 4% 11% standards No opinion 4% 6% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Dunkelman All District Judges All Judge District Dunkelman Judges Case 3.7 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 42 53% 64% 27 Non- 30 5% 80% 24 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Dunkelman received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 26 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 27 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 24 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 27 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.5 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 51 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 27 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.5 3.1 3.5 N/A 11 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 27 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 27 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 24 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 23 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.8 50 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 27 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 24 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 24 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.7 50 Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.9 51 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.3 51 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 24 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 26 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.8 51 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 23 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 23 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 24 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 23 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 22 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Dunkelman Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Dunkelman Dunkelman Dunkelman Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 24 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 24 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 15 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 24 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Dunkelman 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Dunkelman enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Dunkelman Score 4.0 Judge Dunkelman District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 4.0 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunkelman, 51 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 51 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 143,430 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 15 ## Page 16 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 16 ## Page 17 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Dunkelman to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 79 42 0 27 64% Law Enforcement 77 17 2 11 65% Litigant 503 3 55 3 100% Juror 25 7 1 7 100% Others 40 3 0 3 100% Total Non-Attorneys 645 30 58 24 80% Total Respondents 724 72 58 51 71% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 19
  • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.6

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    96%

    47 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    86%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 . 8 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications . 10 Demeanor . 11 Diligence . 12 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Dunkelman, 53 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 53 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 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 96% 86% 83% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 14% 16% 4% 4% 5% 0% Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Dunkelman Dunkelman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 96% 83% 86% 79% standards No, does not meet performance 0% 12% 14% 16% standards No opinion 4% 4% 0% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 3.3 Judge Dunkelman All District Judges Judge All District Dunkelman Judges Case Management 3.6 3.4 Application and Knowledge 3.5 3.3 of Law Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.4 Fairness 3.5 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 47 21% 60% 28 Non- 35 - - 25 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 Dunkelman 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 Paul R. Dunkelman 6 ## Page 7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 40 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.6 49 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.3 3.8 3.3 40 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.8 3.4 48 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.3 48 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 26 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 21 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 25 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.2 N/A 3.5 22 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 20 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.4 48 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 26 thorough and well-reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 21 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 21 being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.9 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.4 48 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.6 47 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.3 3.2 N/A 3.3 22 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunkelman Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge District Judge Dunkelman Number of Dunkelman Judges Dunkelman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 26 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 22 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 25 for cases Beginning court on time. 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 21 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 22 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 22 Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 21 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Dunkelman Score 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Dunkelman Attorneys 3.5 Judge Dunkelman Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Dunkelman Dunkelman Dunkelman Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 22 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.3 3.2 N/A 3.3 21 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 19 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 20 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.5 48 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 26 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Dunkelman 13 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Dunkelman enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Dunkelman Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Dunkelman District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 4.0 3.7 13 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunkelman, 53 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 53 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 15 ## Page 16 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. 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, 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 16 ## Page 17 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 39 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 13 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Dunkelman to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2022. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 223 47 28 60% Staff - 9 9 - Others 256 26 16 62% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 35 25 - Total Respondents - 82 53 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul R. Dunkelman 19
• 2016 cycle
  • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Paul Dunkelman 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 5th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Paul Dunkelman Eagle County Justice Center P.O. Box 597 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Judge Dunkelman: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim 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 fifth 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 Paul Dunkelman received an overall combined average grade of 3.62 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.54, to the overall average grade received from non- attorney respondents, 3.69, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.46 (not shown below). Judge Dunkelman Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.62 3.54 3.69 Sample Size -- 25 36 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Dunkelman’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Dunkelman Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.62 3.54 25 3.69 36 Overall 3.62 3.54 25 3.69 36 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 district judges receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.26. 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 Dunkelman’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Dunkelman Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.89 21 58% 3.35 15 42% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Paul Dunkelman (Sample Size 25) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Paul Dunkelman Paul Dunkelman All District Sample Size = 25 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 71% 4% 0% 4% 0% 21% 3.79 3.35 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 25% 0% 0% 4% 8% 3.55 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 58% 29% 0% 0% 0% 13% 3.67 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 29% 4% 0% 4% 8% 3.41 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.61 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 13% 17% 4% 0% 4% 3.39 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 58% 13% 17% 0% 4% 8% 3.32 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 46% 13% 13% 0% 0% 29% 3.47 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.46 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 71% 21% 0% 0% 4% 4% 3.61 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 58% 25% 4% 0% 4% 8% 3.45 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.53 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 79% 8% 4% 0% 4% 4% 3.65 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 71% 21% 0% 0% 4% 4% 3.61 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 13% 4% 0% 4% 13% 3.57 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 63% 17% 8% 0% 4% 8% 3.45 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.57 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 63% 21% 13% 0% 4% 0% 3.38 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 63% 25% 4% 0% 0% 8% 3.64 3.33 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 58% 21% 0% 0% 4% 17% 3.55 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.52 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.54 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Paul Dunkelman Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 23% Completely neutral 78% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 11% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% 57% Recommend retain 4% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 17% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 79% 79% Neither 17% 9% Total Not Retain 4% 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Paul Dunkelman Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.54 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.61 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.31 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.79 case after trial. 3.35 3.55 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.41 3.67 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.41 3.24 3.46 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.15 3.39 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.31 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.47 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.67 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 3.53 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3.61 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.45 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.33 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Paul Dunkelman 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Paul Dunkelman Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.57 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.65 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.49 3.61 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.57 neutral manner. 3.26 3.45 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.52 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.38 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.64 being prepared for cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.55 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 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% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 78% Completely Neutral 49% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 11% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Paul Dunkelman Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Dunkelman be retained or not retained in office? 75% Strongly recommend retain 57% 4% Recommend retain 22% 17% Judge All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 9% Dunkelman Judges* Total Retain 79% 79% 0% Neither 17% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 4% 12% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Paul Dunkelman (Sample Size 36) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Paul Dunkelman Paul Dunkelman All District Sample Size = 36 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 85% 6% 6% 0% 0% 3% 3.82 3.66 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 88% 6% 3% 0% 0% 3% 3.88 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 82% 3% 3% 6% 0% 6% 3.72 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 82% 6% 9% 0% 0% 3% 3.76 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.80 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 88% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 82% 3% 3% 6% 6% 0% 3.50 3.57 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 38% 3.90 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 79% 9% 9% 3% 0% 0% 3.64 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.72 3.61 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 88% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.85 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 88% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.85 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 88% 6% 3% 0% 0% 3% 3.88 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.86 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 79% 15% 3% 0% 0% 3% 3.79 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 15% 6% 0% 3% 3% 3.61 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 18% 6% 0% 0% 15% 3.66 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 79% 3% 3% 6% 0% 9% 3.71 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 62% 24% 9% 3% 0% 3% 3.48 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.65 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 18% 12% 3% 0% 6% 3.47 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 6% 6% 3% 9% 12% 3.30 3.59 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 12% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3.45 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.41 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Paul Dunkelman Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 4% 9% Competely neutral 91% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 4% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.09 0.05 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 5% 10% Competely neutral 74% 78% Lenient sentencing total 21% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.21 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 68% 74% Recommend retain 15% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% 5% Recommend not retain 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 83% 87% Neither 9% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Paul Dunkelman Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.69 Overall Average Grade 3.62 3.80 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.82 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.66 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.88 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.72 manner. 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.76 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.56 3.72 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.61 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.82 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.50 case without bias. 3.57 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.90 themselves. 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.64 their case. 3.64 3.86 Q3. Overall Communications 3.70 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.85 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.67 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.85 understand. 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.88 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Paul Dunkelman 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Paul Dunkelman Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.65 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.79 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.61 proceedings. 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.66 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.71 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.48 little wasted time. 3.54 3.41 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.47 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.30 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.45 relevant facts. 3.56 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.09 Paul Dunkelman 0.05 All District 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 -0.21 Paul Dunkelman 0.01 All District 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. Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Paul Dunkelman Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Dunkelman be retained or not retained in office? 68% Strongly recommend retain 74% 15% Recommend retain 13% 9% Neither retain nor not retain Judge All Dist 5% Dunkelman Judges* 6% Total Retain 83% 87% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 9% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 7% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Paul Dunkelman All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim 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 District 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 an interim evaluation in 2015 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 an interim evaluation in 2015. 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 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, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## 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. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District 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 district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 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 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 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 District 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. 16 ## 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 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding District 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 that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non- attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. 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 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, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 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 District 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 district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 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 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 District 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 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. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall 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 Dunkelman 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 District Judges surveys for all district judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Paul Dunkelman 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 21 8 8 0 5 38.5% Defense Attorneys 16 10 2 0 4 28.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 13 6 1 0 6 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 22 4 8 0 10 71.4% Total Attorneys 72 28 19 0 25 47.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 65 29 21 6 9 20.5% Law Enforcement 5 2 3 0 0 0.0% Defendant 190 47 141 1 1 2.0% Civil Litigant 41 19 17 0 5 20.8% Jurors 41 17 3 0 21 55.3% Total Non-attorneys 342 114 185 7 36 22.9% Grand Total: 414 142 204 7 61 29.0% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3259 1426 748 0 1085 43.2% Defense Attorneys 3585 1696 482 0 1407 45.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 25 14 2 0 9 39.1% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2791 1004 327 0 1460 59.3% Other Attorneys Civil 4006 1545 780 0 1681 52.1% GAL 11 0 0 0 11 100.0% Total Attorneys 13677 5685 2339 0 5653 49.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 43 28 12 0 3 9.7% Witness 7172 3752 2195 336 889 17.9% Other 52 29 16 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 2858 1657 623 152 426 19.1% Defendant 16384 7182 8195 112 895 10.9% Civil Litigant 8222 4671 2146 126 1279 21.1% Witness 196 90 49 3 54 36.7% Other 231 105 45 14 67 36.0% Jurors 10278 4073 804 154 5247 55.4% Employees, including Interpreters 567 108 90 10 359 75.3% Probation Officers 432 118 78 1 235 66.4% Total Non-attorneys 46435 21813 14253 909 9460 29.4% Grand Total: 60112 27498 16592 909 15113 34.7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5805 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. 49% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 24% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 26% 10% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 25% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.31 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 23% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 11% 7% 5% 23% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 28% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 6% 5% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 22% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.33 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 18% 6% 3% 2% 14% 3.42 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District 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 23% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 9460 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 11% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.57 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 7% 2% 1% 3% 33% 3.60 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 77% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.61 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.59 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District 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 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.05 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 78% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 87% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim 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 the 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 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 retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain 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 the 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 the judge. 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 their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences 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 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. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 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
  • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.8

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    —

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    —

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Paul Dunkelman 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Appellate Judges.15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Results .17 Survey of Non Attorneys .18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Retention .21 Demeanor .22 Fairness .23 Communications .24 Diligence .25 Application of Law .26 Bias .27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .28 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Paul Dunkelman, 61 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 47 agreed they had worked with Judge Dunkelman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 47 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 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.8 Attorneys 3.73 Total Non-Attorneys 3.87 Juror 3.97 Non-Attorney Other* 3.71 Table 1 Judge Paul Dunkelman Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.8 3.73 3.87 3.97 3.71 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 95% Attorneys 100% Total Non-Attorneys 91% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 75% Table 2 Judge Paul Dunkelman Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 95% 100% 91% 100% 75% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Paul Dunkelman Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.72 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.65 3.87 3.97 3.71 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.80 3.88 4.00 3.67 Diligence 3.71 3.83 3.86 3.77 Demeanor 3.76 3.90 4.00 3.72 Fairness N/A 3.88 4.00 3.66 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 71 3 25 50% 26% Total Non- 342 127 22 13% 19% Attorneys Staff 6 0 2 33% 0% Jurors 79 0 14 18% 0% Other Non- 257 127 6 8% 45% 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunkelman, 34 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 25 agreed they had worked with Judge Dunkelman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 25 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 “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,732 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 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 42% 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 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 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 September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 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 October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 5 ## Page 8 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). 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. 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 Attorney Survey 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 Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category 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 attorney. 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 bias and retention questions. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 6 ## Page 9 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 exceptions 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. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Paul Dunkelman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Paul Dunkelman Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 92% 80% 67% 60% 40% 20% 13% 8% 6% 5% 9% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Dunkelman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dunkelman 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 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 3.72 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.68 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.79 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.56 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.84 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 6 Case Management Judge Paul All Dunkelman Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Dunkelman Judges Responses: 25 Promptly issuing a decision on the 84% 16% -- -- -- -- 3.84 3.41 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 72% 12% 16% -- -- -- 3.56 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 80% 12% 4% -- -- 4% 3.79 3.32 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 72% 24% 4% -- -- -- 3.68 3.29 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.72 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 9 ## Page 12 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 Dunkelman 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 3.18 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.65 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.60 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.60 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 3.82 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.64 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.68 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Dunkelman Judges Being able to identify and 76% 16% 8% -- -- -- 3.68 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 72% 20% 8% -- -- -- 3.64 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 75% 17% -- -- -- 8% 3.82 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 72% 16% 12% -- -- -- 3.60 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 68% 24% 8% -- -- -- 3.60 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.65 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dunkelman 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 3.39 Communications Overall Average 3.80 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 3.84 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.76 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 8 Communications Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Dunkelman Judges Making sure all participants 76% 24% -- -- -- -- 3.76 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are 84% 16% -- -- -- -- 3.84 3.28 clear, thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.80 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dunkelman 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 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 3.76 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.68 3.33 Treating participants with respect 3.80 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 9 Demeanor Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Dunkelman Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 76% 20% -- 4% -- -- 3.68 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.76 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dunkelman 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. 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 3.71 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 3.86 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 3.72 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 3.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 10 Diligence Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Dunkelman Judges Using good judgment in application of 64% 32% 4% -- -- -- 3.60 3.16 relevant law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 72% 28% -- -- -- -- 3.72 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 72% 12% -- -- -- 16% 3.86 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.71 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Dunkelman in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 100% 80% 67% 60% 51% 40% 23% 17% 20% 11% 11% 8% 8% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Dunkelman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunkelman, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Dunkelman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. The initial invitation was sent on November 4, 2015. A reminder email to those that had not already completed their evaluations was sent on November 16th. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 15 ## Page 18 e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 16 ## Page 19 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B,C,D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 9 All District Judges 3.55 Judge Dunkelman 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Paul All Dunkelman Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Dunkelman Judges Responses: 1 Overall performance as a -- 5% -- -- -- 95% 3.00 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Paul Dunkelman, 27 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 22 agreed they had worked with Judge Dunkelman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 22 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. 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 October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th 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 October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, 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 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 18 ## Page 21 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. 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. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category 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. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney 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 bias and retention questions. 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 exceptions 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 19 ## Page 22 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Dunkelman be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge Paul Dunkelman Total Retain 91% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 5% Figure 10 100% 86% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 12% 5% 5% 6% 3% 5% 6% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Dunkelman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 21 ## Page 24 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 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.90 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.86 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.86 3.65 Treating participants with respect 3.95 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.91 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 13 Demeanor Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 22 Dunkelman Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 95% -- 5% -- -- -- 3.91 3.66 Treating participants with respect 95% 5% -- -- -- -- 3.95 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 95% -- -- 5% -- -- 3.86 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 95% -- -- 5% -- -- 3.86 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.90 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 22 ## Page 25 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 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.88 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 3.86 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.81 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.91 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.86 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 14 Fairness Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 22 Dunkelman Judges Giving participants an 95% -- -- 5% -- -- 3.86 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 95% -- 5% -- -- -- 3.91 3.55 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 68% -- -- 5% -- 27% 3.81 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 95% -- -- 5% -- -- 3.86 3.64 case Fairness Overall Average 3.88 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 23 ## Page 26 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 13 3.71 Communications Overall Average 3.88 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.91 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.86 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.86 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 15 Communications Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 22 Dunkelman Judges Making sure all participants understand the 95% -- -- 5% -- -- 3.86 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 95% -- -- 5% -- -- 3.86 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 95% -- 5% -- -- -- 3.91 3.75 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.88 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 24 ## Page 27 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 14 3.62 Diligence Overall Average 3.83 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 3.76 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.95 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.90 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.90 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.62 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 16 Diligence Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 21 Dunkelman Judges Beginning court on time 76% 14% 5% 5% -- -- 3.62 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 95% -- 5% -- -- -- 3.90 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 90% 10% -- -- -- -- 3.90 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 90% 5% -- -- -- 5% 3.95 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 90% -- 5% 5% -- -- 3.76 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.83 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 25 ## Page 28 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 15 3.56 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.87 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.89 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 4.00 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 3.89 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Dunkelman Table 17 Application of Law Judge Paul Dunkelman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 20 Dunkelman Judges Giving reasons for rulings 81% 10% -- -- -- 10% 3.89 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 81% -- -- -- -- 19% 4.00 3.56 outside pressure Being able to identify and 86% -- 5% -- -- 10% 3.89 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.87 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Dunkelman is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Dunkelman is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 86% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 9% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Dunkelman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 27 ## Page 30 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Dunkelman are. If you feel Judge Dunkelman generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 90% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Dunkelman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Paul Dunkelman 28

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
• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026