← All judges

Stephanie E. Dunn

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2024 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against · 1 recused
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 68.6% yes
    1,674,266 yes · 766,207 no50% needed to retain
    The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Stephanie Dunn MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10–0 with one recusal. Colorado’s statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Dunn has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals since June 2012 and this is her 2nd time standing for retention as a Court of Appeals Judge. The Commission finds that her opinions are thoughtful and she has an excellent judicial demeanor. She is an increasingly senior judge who is successfully mentoring and training a new cohort of colleagues while successfully managing an extraordinarily busy docket. The Commission commends Judge Dunn especially for her significant engagement in the community and leadership roles on myriad committees designed to advance the profession and the operation of the courts. In sum, the Commission finds Judge Dunn is a valuable and effective member of the Court of Appeals. To conduct its evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Dunn, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of her legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. Survey respondents agreed Judge Dunn meets judicial performance standards: 94% of attorneys and 100% of judges who responded to that question answered “yes.” She received an overall score of 3.8 on a 4.0 scale. Judge Dunn received positive comments from lawyers and judges for being fair, impartial and neutral and with regard to her exceptional analytic and writing skills. A total of 16 attorneys and 33 judges responded to the survey.
  • 2016 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 71.1% yes
    1,496,920 yes · 608,391 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report 2015 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 9 to 0, with one recusal, that Judge Stephanie E. Dunn BE RETAINED. Judge Dunn was appointed as a Judge of the Court of Appeals in June, 2012. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado in 1990 and earned her law degree from the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law in 1993.  Before joining the bench she was a partner at the law firm of Perkins Coie, LLC where she practiced from 2003-2012. While a partner at Perkins Coie, she was Chair of both the Denver Diversity committee and the Denver Pro Bono committee.  Her work at Perkins Coie focused on business litigation and appellate practice in both state and federal courts. In addition to membership in several bar associations, she is a member of the National Association of Women Judges and The Colorado Lawyer’s Committee Hate Crimes Education Task Force. She also is a Fellow of the Colorado Bar Foundation and participates in the Our Courts program. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Dunn, read opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed her self-evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding her performance. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend Judge Dunn be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey 85% recommended to retain, 6% not to retain, and 9% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of judges completing the survey 97% recommended that she be retained and 3% made no recommendation regarding retention. Attorney survey responses indicate that Judge Dunn’s performance was strong in treating parties equally, courtesy toward attorneys, issuing opinions in a timely manner, and being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. Attorney responses also indicate that she is effective in making reasoned decisions, writing opinions that are clear and adequately explain the basis of the decision. The Commission’s observation of Judge Dunn during oral arguments showed that she was well prepared, courteous, and engaging. Attorneys further acknowledge that her decisions are generally thoughtful, well researched, comprehensive, crisp, and straightforward.  Judge Dunn’s appellate writing ability was considered strong in all categories measured by the survey.  This was confirmed by the Commission’s review of her opinions.  It was noted that she has on occasion not addressed arguments presented by the parties and can expand the breadth of her decision beyond that required by the issues in the case.  The Commission believes that Judge Dunn is exemplary at meeting the timeliness of her opinions without compromising the depth of legal analysis or the clarity of her writing.

Surveys & reports

  • 2024 cycle
    • 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Stephanie Dunn 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . .10 Methodology and How to Read Results . .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Dunn, 40 attorneys and judges completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 40 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 (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.8 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Dunn All Appellate Judges All Appellate Judge Dunn Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.5 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 95% 95% 87% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 7% 7% 6% 3% 3% 3% 2% 0% Judge Dunn All Appellate Judges Judge Dunn All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Judge Judge Appellate Appellate Dunn Dunn Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 87% 79% 95% 95% standards No, does not meet 7% 15% 3% 3% performance standards No opinion 7% 6% 3% 2% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 General (Attorneys) 3.5 3.5 Writing (Attorneys) 3.3 3.9 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.5 Judge Dunn All Appellate Judges All Judge Appellate Dunn Judges General (Attorneys) 3.7 3.5 Writing (Attorneys) 3.5 3.3 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.9 3.5 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 96 26% 16% 15 Judges 25 9% - 25 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Dunn Overall 3.7 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Appellate Judge Dunn Overall Number of Responses Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side 3.7 3.4 15 of the case Allowing parties to present their 3.7 3.5 15 arguments and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of 3.7 3.6 12 race, sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.7 3.5 15 Not engaging in ex parte 4.0 3.9 11 communications Being prepared for oral argument 3.8 3.6 15 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunn Overall 3.5 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Appellate Judges Number of Judge Dunn Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.5 3.4 11 Writing opinions that adequately explain 3.5 3.3 11 the basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.6 3.5 15 Making decisions without regard to 3.5 3.5 12 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon 3.3 3.1 15 the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.6 3.3 14 not be decided 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dunn Overall 3.9 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Appellate Number of Judge Dunn Overall Judges Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.9 3.6 25 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.8 3.6 25 Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.9 3.7 22 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 4 3.7 23 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.9 3.6 25 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 4 3.6 23 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.9 3.8 22 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic 3.9 3.8 21 status 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunn, 40 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 40 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 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total 7,151 surveys were completed with an additional 10,495 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 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%.In addition to email, attorney could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 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 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. 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 and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23th a nd January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emails, attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 10 ## Page 11 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 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 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 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite 3,427 1,864 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 11 ## Page 12 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2022. A ll 227 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2022. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 37 survey invitations sent. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 12rd, 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 20th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2 023. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 16th , 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 23rd. T he survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2023. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 375 96 0 15 16% Judges 264 25 0 25 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 14
    • 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge St ephanie D unn 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report – Attorney Survey . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys). . 7 Detailed Report – Judge Survey . . 8 General Evaluation Questions (Judges). . 8 Appellate Writing (Judges) . . 8 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 9 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 9 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Appellate Judges. . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Dunn, 50 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 50 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 824 16 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 1 Total Attorneys - 17 Judges 260 33 Total N/A 50 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.8 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Dunn Overall Judge Dunn Overall Number of Responses Overall Grade 3.8 50 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 94% 100% 16 33 standards No, does not meet performance 6% 0% 1 0 standards No opinion 0% 0% 0 0 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 General 4.0 3.5 Writing 4.0 Score Attorneys Score Judges Score Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges General 3.7 4.0 15 32 Writing 3.5 4.0 16 32 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report – At torney Survey General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) Judge Dunn Overall Number of Responses Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.7 15 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 3.6 14 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) Number of Judge Dunn Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.5 15 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.5 16 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.5 15 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.4 14 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.6 16 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.5 16 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report – Ju dge Survey General Evaluation Questions (Judges) Judge Dunn Overall Number of Responses Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 4.0 32 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 4.0 25 Appellate Writing (Judges) Number of Judge Dunn Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 4.0 32 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 4.0 32 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.9 30 Makes decisions without regard to possible 4.0 31 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 4.0 32 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 4.0 32 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 8 ## Page 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunn, 50 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 50 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 The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 9 ## Page 10 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Invitation Method Invitations Sent Aspects of Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 2497 793 select) Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to 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 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 10 ## Page 11 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 11 ## Page 12 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 12 ## Page 13 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 13 ## Page 14 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecess arily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county 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’s or justice’s written opinions). The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Ap pellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates All 223 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves. A total of 71 judges responded and completed 992 evaluations. B. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 16th, 2024 and reminders were sent on January 26th a nd January 31st, 2 024. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 4th, 2 024. C. Questions 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). Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. D. Analysis and Reporting Judges were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 15 ## Page 16 The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 16
  • 2016 cycle
    • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Stephanie Dunn 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate 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 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Stephanie Dunn, 216 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 111 agreed they had worked with Judge Dunn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 111 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail 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 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Combined 3.77 Attorneys 3.63 District and Appellate Judges 3.84 Table 1 Judge Stephanie Dunn Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.77 3.63 3.84 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 93% Attorneys 85% District & Appellate Judges 97% Table 2 Judge Stephanie Dunn Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 93% 85% 97% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Stephanie Dunn Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.80 3.84 Writing 3.45 N/A 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 233 13 35 43% 63% District and Appellate 211 0 76 57% 37% Judges *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 Stephanie Dunn 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunn, 95 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 35 agreed they had worked with Judge Dunn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 35 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. 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 “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,482 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%. A total of 161 invitations were sent to 27 staff attorneys working in the appellate courts. Of these, 81 surveys were completed and an additional 11 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 57% 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 88%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015 and closed on February 22nd 2016. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 5 ## Page 8 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 with 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 e-mailed 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: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Judge’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Judge’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice 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. 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. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Dunn be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Stephanie Dunn Total Retain 85% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 6% Figure 3 100% 80% 71% 59% 60% 40% 17% 20% 14% 9% 9% 9% 6% 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 Dunn All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dunn 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 3.43 Appellate General Overall Average 3.8 3.55 Being prepared for oral argument 3.82 3.94 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3.47 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.88 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.67 economic status 3.97 Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.48 questions 3.76 3.22 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.69 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Dunn 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Appellate General Judge Stephanie Dunn All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 35 Average Judges Being fair and impartial toward 74% 20% 6% -- -- -- 3.69 3.22 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 83% 6% -- 6% -- 6% 3.76 3.48 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 83% 3% -- -- -- 14% 3.97 3.67 economic status Being courteous toward 86% 6% 3% -- -- 6% 3.88 3.47 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 68% -- -- -- -- 32% 4 3.94 communications Being prepared for oral 77% 17% -- -- -- 6% 3.82 3.55 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.8 3.43 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Dunn 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 Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.45 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.13 decided 3.4 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.98 facts 3.31 3.39 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.71 3.45 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.59 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.16 Court's decision 3.38 3.22 Writing opinions that are clear 3.41 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Dunn 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Appellate Writing Judge Stephanie Dunn All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 29 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 62% 24% 10% -- 3% -- 3.41 3.22 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 66% 24% -- 3% 7% -- 3.38 3.16 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 62% 24% 7% -- -- 7% 3.59 3.45 Making decisions without regard to 64% 18% 4% -- -- 14% 3.71 3.39 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 66% 17% 7% 3% 7% -- 3.31 2.98 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 55% 21% 3% 3% 3% 14% 3.4 3.13 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.45 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 11 ## Page 14 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dunn, 121 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 76 agreed they had worked with Judge Dunn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 76 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 11 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,983 survey invitations were sent and 613 responded and 611 completed the survey. The overall response rate was 31% and the completion rate was 99%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 6th. A reminder email was sent on January 13th to those who had not yet responded. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on November 10th. A reminder email was sent on November 23rd to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 12 ## Page 15 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. 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 Stephanie Dunn 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Dunn be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Judge Stephanie Dunn Total Retain 97% Neither 3% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 6 100% 90% 78% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 6% 3% 2% 1% 0% 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 Dunn All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect 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 7 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.69 3.84 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.92 4 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.84 economic status 3.96 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.74 3.97 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.53 decided 3.74 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.61 facts 3.81 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.77 4 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.64 3.86 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.59 Court's decision 3.74 Writing opinions that are clear 3.58 3.84 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Dunn 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Appellate Individual Questions Judge Stephanie Dunn All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 76 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 87% 10% 3% -- -- -- 3.84 3.58 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 84% 10% 3% 3% -- -- 3.74 3.59 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 77% 13% -- -- -- 10% 3.86 3.64 Making decisions without regard to 94% -- -- -- -- 6% 4 3.77 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 87% 10% -- 3% -- -- 3.81 3.61 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 77% 19% 3% -- -- -- 3.74 3.53 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 94% 3% -- -- -- 3% 3.97 3.74 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 87% 3% -- -- -- 10% 3.96 3.84 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 81% -- -- -- -- 19% 4 3.92 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.84 3.69 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Stephanie Dunn 16

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