Kraig Ecton

Evaluation history

• 2024 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Larimer · Larimer

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 64.1% yes

  108,702 yes · 60,787 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a vote of 10-0, agrees that Judge Kraig Ecton MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Ecton’s docket consists of a mix of civil cases, criminal cases, misdemeanor cases, traffic cases, mental health, and small claims matters. Judge Ecton runs an efficient courtroom. He is calm and treats individuals appearing before him with respect and fairness. Judge Ecton is prepared for his court proceedings and is well-versed in the law. The Commission was impressed with Judge Ecton’s thoughtful and self-reflective analysis of his performance and willingness to incorporate appropriate feedback. It is clear to the Commission that he takes his role seriously and approaches it with humility. He listens to the parties appearing in his courtroom before rendering his decision. Some concerns have been raised about Judge Ecton’s use of virtual appearances. Judge Ecton thoroughly explained his reasoning, and the Commission accepts that his rationale is intended to preserve the integrity of court proceedings. Judge Ecton is to be commended for participating in Larimer County’s weekend warrant clearance events. The Commission concludes that Judge Ecton remains a positive, motivated, and caring judge who meets judicial performance standards. The Commission personally interviewed Judge Ecton, observed him in court (both in person and virtually), analyzed judicial performance survey data, reviewed a sample of written orders, considered written comments from attorneys and non-attorneys, and reviewed his self-evaluation. In addition, the Commission received comments from representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office. A total of 32 individuals, 10 attorneys and 22 non-attorneys, believed they had sufficient knowledge to assess whether Judge Ecton meets performance standards. When asked whether Judge Ecton meets performance standards: Of the attorneys responding to the survey, six answered yes, three answered no, and one expressed no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 17 answered yes, three answered no, and two expressed no opinion. His overall performance score based on a total of 33 responses is 3.2 out of 4 for all performance categories combined (case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness). Given significantly low response rates to the surveys overall, the Commission gave the appropriate weight to the survey responses in its evaluation.
• 2020 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Larimer · Larimer

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 75.2% yes

  133,273 yes · 44,042 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that the Honorable Kraig Ecton MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Ecton primarily presides over criminal, civil, and traffic cases.  Judge Ecton is diligent, efficient, and respectful.  He takes time to ensure that parties are heard and explains court proceedings clearly to self-represented parties.  Judge Ecton is prepared for his court proceedings, well-versed in the law, and drafts well-researched written orders.  The Commission was impressed with Judge Ecton’s thoughtful and self-reflective analysis of his performance.  He has taken many proactive steps to improve his skills as a judge, including reflecting on his procedures and consulting with other judges throughout the state.  Certain attorneys have noted that Judge Ecton moves cases too quickly through the process.  When the Commission asked Judge Ecton about this critique, he thoroughly explained his rationale for managing his docket, which allows matters to be resolved faster and maintains flexibility. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Ecton, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared in Judge Ecton’s courtroom.  A total of thirty-four individuals, thirty attorneys and four non-attorneys, believed they had sufficient knowledge to express their opinion of Judge Ecton.  When asked whether Judge Ecton meets performance standards: Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 86% answered yes; 14% answered no; and 0% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 75% answered yes; and 25% answered no.  The small number of non-attorney responses makes this percentage difficult to consider as a reliable measure.  It should be noted that for the retention cycle in 2020, different methods for non-attorney survey distribution and collection were utilized statewide on a trial basis.  This transition may account for the low response rate from non-attorneys.  Judge Ecton received ratings similar to the statewide average among all county court judges standing for retention with regard to the following areas surveyed: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Diligence, and Demeanor.
• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Larimer · Larimer

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 70.8% yes

  102,293 yes · 42,093 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Kraig Ecton BE RETAINED. Judge Ecton was appointed to the Larimer County Court in January of 2014.  As a Larimer County Court Judge, he presides over criminal, traffic, and civil cases, including small claims.  Prior to being appointed to the bench, Judge Ecton served as a Deputy District Attorney for Larimer County and Assistant City Attorney for Fort Collins.  Judge Ecton received his undergraduate degree from Colorado College, his master’s degree in Business Administration from Colorado State University and his law degree from the University of Colorado. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Ecton, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Ecton.  The survey asked “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Ecton be retained in office?”  Of the attorneys and non-attorneys completing the survey, 82% of the combined groups recommended retention.  Of the attorneys responding, 62% recommended retention, 35% recommended non-retention, and 4% made no recommendation. Of the non-attorneys responding, 91% recommended retention, 10% recommended non-retention, and 0% made no recommendation.  A total of 27 attorneys and 67 non-attorneys completed the judicial performance survey regarding Judge Ecton.  (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Survey respondents described Judge Ecton as even-tempered, well-reasoned, and fair.  Other respondents commented that Judge Ecton struggled with case management and was too soft spoken, making him difficult to hear.  With respect to grades in specific subject areas, including case management and diligence, Judge Ecton scored slightly lower than other county judges, but still mostly in the “3” range (out of a total of 4).  Although his scores may be lower in certain areas, Judge Ecton’s in-person interview was superior. During the interview, Judge Ecton addressed all of the concerns of the Commission with a view towards improvement.  He presented himself as self-reflective, hard-working, and sincere.  Judge Ecton described his efforts to continue expanding his legal knowledge base using multiple resources. Judge Ecton demonstrated tremendous insight during the interview as reflected in his statement, “My best is not quite good enough yet.” The Commission was very impressed with Judge Ecton’s thoughtful responses to interview questions and his willingness to work on improvement in certain areas.  Judge Ecton is relatively new on the bench and with additional time and experience will likely develop into a very successful judicial officer.

Surveys & reports

• 2024 cycle
  • 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kraig Ecton 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report County C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 3 Performance Scores . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor . .10 Diligence . .11 Fairness . .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ecton, 47 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. 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 4 3.4 3.1 3 2 1 0 Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge Ecton All County Judges Overall Grade 3.1 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 85% 81% 80% 73% 65% 60% 40% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 7% 5% 5% 5% 0% Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge Ecton All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Ecton Ecton Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 65% 81% 73% 85% standards No, does not meet 30% 15% 20% 10% performance standards No opinion 5% 5% 7% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.1 Communications 3.6 3.1 Diligence 3.4 3.0 Demeanor 3.5 2.9 Fairness 3.4 Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge All County Ecton Judges Case Management 3.2 3.4 Application and 3.1 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.1 3.6 Diligence 3.1 3.4 Demeanor 3.0 3.5 Fairness 2.9 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 44 20% 52% 23 Non-Attorneys 38 - - 24 *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 Ecton 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.1 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 27 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.3 38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 34 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.5 2.8 3.4 40 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.0 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.2 35 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.9 3.2 2.9 N/A 19 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 16 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.0 3.2 3.0 N/A 18 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 17 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 17 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ecton Attorneys 2.8 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.5 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.2 36 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 2.6 3.4 2.6 N/A 18 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 17 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 17 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Score 3.0 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ecton Attorneys 2.9 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.1 3.5 2.9 3.2 36 dignity Treating participants with 3.0 3.5 2.8 3.2 36 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 17 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Score 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ecton Attorneys 2.7 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.5 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.8 3.1 2.8 N/A 19 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.4 3.3 2.4 N/A 14 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 2.8 3.3 2.8 N/A 17 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 16 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 16 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 16 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 16 Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 16 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ecton Attorneys 2.7 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Ecton County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 16 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 16 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 11 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 15 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.2 35 manner. Being fair and impartial 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 20 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ecton, 47 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 47 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, 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 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. 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 emailed invitations, attorneys 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 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated 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 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 13 ## Page 14 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. To help reduce the 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 a list of all judges in their district or 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 f or 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 (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A 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 2022 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 14 ## Page 15 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the 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 Kraig Ecton 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 219 44 23 52% Staff - 4 4 - Others 517 34 20 59% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 38 24 - Total Respondents - 82 47 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 16
  • 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kr aig Ecton 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 13 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ecton, 33 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 33 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 347 10 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 10 Non-attorney email Invite 574 20 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 3 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 23 Total N/A 33 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. 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. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Ecton Overall Judge Ecton Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.2 33 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 60% 77% 6 17 standards No, does not meet performance 30% 14% 3 3 standards No opinion 10% 9% 1 2 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Ecton Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 Communications 3.3 Diligence 3.6 Demeanor 3.1 Fairness 3.1 Judge Ecton Score Judge Ecton Number of Score Responses Case Management 3.3 33 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 33 Communications 3.3 33 Diligence 3.6 32 Demeanor 3.1 32 Fairness 3.1 32 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.3 Attorneys 2.7 Non-Attorneys 3.5 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.4 3.4 3.4 23 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.7 3.5 3.8 33 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 3.4 3.2 3.5 28 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.2 2.4 3.6 33 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 2.6 1.2 3.3 27 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 3.1 Non-Attorneys 3.1 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.2 3.3 3.1 33 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 2.9 2.9 N/A 8 Issues consistent decisions when the 2.9 2.9 N/A 8 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.4 3.4 N/A 8 Consistently applies laws and rules. 2.9 2.9 N/A 8 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 2.5 2.5 N/A 8 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 3.0 N/A 3.0 22 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.4 N/A 3.4 19 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.3 Attorneys 2.9 Non-Attorneys 3.5 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.5 3.2 3.6 33 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 2.4 2.4 N/A 10 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 2.7 2.7 N/A 9 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.2 3.2 N/A 10 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.7 N/A 3.7 23 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 N/A 3.6 23 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 3.2 N/A 3.2 21 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 2.6 Non-Attorneys 3.3 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.2 3.0 3.3 32 Treats participants with respect. 3.2 2.8 3.5 32 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 2.5 2.5 N/A 10 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 1.7 1.7 N/A 10 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.0 3.0 N/A 10 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 3.0 N/A 3.0 22 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.6 Attorneys 3.2 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.3 3.3 N/A 10 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 2.8 2.8 N/A 6 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.3 3.3 N/A 9 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.7 N/A 3.7 22 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.9 N/A 3.9 22 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.7 N/A 3.7 22 Is prepared for cases 3.6 N/A 3.6 22 Manages court proceedings so there is little 3.6 N/A 3.6 22 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 2.4 Non-Attorneys 3.4 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.3 N/A 3.3 22 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 3.4 N/A 3.4 22 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 3.6 N/A 3.6 17 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.3 N/A 3.3 21 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 2.9 2.9 N/A 10 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 2.8 2.8 N/A 10 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 1.9 1.9 N/A 10 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 2.0 2.0 N/A 9 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ecton, 33 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 33 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 Kraig Ecton 13 ## Page 14 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 Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent 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-select) 2497 793 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 Kraig Ecton 14 ## Page 15 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 Kraig Ecton 15 ## Page 16 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 Kraig Ecton 16 ## Page 17 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 Kraig Ecton 17 ## Page 18 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 Unnecessarily 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 Kraig Ecton 18
• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kraig Ecton 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .13 Methodology and How to Read Results .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ecton, 76 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 76 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 3.5 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge Ecton All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 86% 81% 78% 80% 76% 60% 40% 22% 19% 20% 13% 10% 5% 5% 4% 0% Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge Ecton All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Ecton Ecton Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 78% 81% 76% 86% standards No, does not meet 22% 13% 19% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 5% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.5 Communications 3.6 3.4 Diligence 3.5 3.3 Demeanor 3.5 3.3 Fairness 3.5 Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge All County Ecton Judges Case 3.2 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.2 3.4 Law Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.3 3.5 Fairness 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 25 42% 72% 18 Non- 79 5% 73% 58 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Ecton received 2 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 Kraig Ecton 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.2 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.5 3.4 N/A 16 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.5 N/A 18 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 16 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.9 3.4 2.9 N/A 18 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.1 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 75 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 18 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 2.6 3.4 2.6 N/A 7 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 18 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3 3.2 3 N/A 18 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 57 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 55 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.5 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.5 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 78 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 18 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 60 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 60 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.4 78 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.3 78 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 78 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 60 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.2 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.5 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 18 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.5 76 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.5 3.3 N/A 15 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 60 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 60 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 58 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 59 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ecton Attorneys Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Ecton County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 60 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 57 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 44 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 57 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ecton, 76 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 76 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 141,174 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 Kraig Ecton 13 ## Page 14 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 Kraig Ecton 14 ## Page 15 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 Kraig Ecton 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 59 25 0 18 72% Law Enforcement 96 2 0 1 50% Litigant 1850 50 294 34 68% Juror 65 20 4 19 95% Others 14 7 0 4 57% Total Non-Attorneys 2025 79 298 58 73% Total Respondents 2084 104 298 76 73% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 16
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.3

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    86%

    49 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    75%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kraig Ecton 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Ecton, 34 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 34 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge Ecton All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 86% 83% 80% 75% 60% 40% 25% 20% 14% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge Ecton All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Ecton Ecton Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 83% 75% 94% standards No, does not meet 14% 13% 25% 4% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.5 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.2 Diligence 3.4 3.2 Demeanor 3.4 2.6 Fairness 3.8 Judge Ecton All County Judges Judge All County Ecton Judges Case 3.5 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.2 3.3 Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.2 3.4 Demeanor 3.2 3.4 Fairness 2.6 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 49 30% 61% 30 Non- 7 30% 57% 4 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Ecton received 1 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.5 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 4.0 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 29 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 32 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.0 29 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.4 3.1 4.0 31 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.2 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 2.8 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.4 3.4 3 32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 28 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 27 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.2 3.1 3.2 N/A 29 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 28 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.5 3.7 N/A 2.5 4 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3 3.7 N/A 3 4 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.4 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.8 33 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 29 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 4 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 4 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.2 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 2.6 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.3 3.5 3.4 2.8 33 dignity Treating participants with 3 3.5 3.1 2.5 33 respect Conducting his/her courtroom in 3.2 3.3 3.2 2.8 33 a neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 2.5 3.8 N/A 2.5 4 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Ecton Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Ecton Attorneys 3.2 Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 3.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 11 ## Page 12 County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 28 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 23 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 25 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3 3.6 N/A 3.0 4 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3 3.7 N/A 3.0 4 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3 3.8 N/A 3.0 4 cases Managing court proceedings so 3 3.6 N/A 3.0 4 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Ecton Score 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Ecton Attorneys Judge Ecton Non-Attorneys 2.6 Judge Ecton County Judge Ecton Judge Ecton Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.5 3.8 N/A 2.5 4 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.8 3.8 N/A 2.8 4 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 2.0 3.8 N/A 2.0 2 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 2.7 3.8 N/A 2.7 3 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ecton, 34 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 34 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 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% 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 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% 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 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A 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 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. 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 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 15 ## Page 16 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 164 49 0 30 61% Staff 15 6 0 3 - Others 2 1 0 1 - Total Non-Attorneys 17 7 0 4 57% Total Respondents 181 56 0 34 61% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 17
• 2016 cycle
  • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Kraig Ecton 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 8th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Kraig Ecton Larimer County Justice Center 201 La Porte Ave., Suite 100 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Dear Judge Ecton: 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 fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Kraig Ecton received an overall combined average grade of 3.37 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.36, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.37, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.42 [not shown below]. Judge Ecton Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.37 3.36 3.37 Sample Size -- 43 29 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Ecton’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Ecton Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.37 3.36 43 3.37 29 Overall 3.37 3.36 43 3.37 29 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.81, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.27. 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 Ecton’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Ecton Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 0.00 0 0% 3.37 29 100% 3.81 3.27 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Kraig Ecton (Sample Size 43) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Kraig Ecton All County Sample Size = 43 A B C D Fail DK/NA Kraig Ecton Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 41% 21% 3% 0% 0% 36% 3.60 3.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 56% 26% 13% 0% 0% 5% 3.46 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 36% 28% 8% 3% 0% 26% 3.31 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 38% 10% 3% 0% 0% 3.33 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.43 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 44% 31% 21% 0% 0% 5% 3.24 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 31% 18% 0% 0% 5% 3.30 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 31% 10% 15% 3% 0% 41% 3.17 3.00 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 32% 21% 0% 0% 4% 3.22 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.23 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 59% 23% 13% 0% 0% 5% 3.49 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 13% 0% 0% 28% 3.39 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 26% 8% 0% 0% 3% 3.58 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 23% 3% 5% 0% 3% 3.55 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 54% 21% 10% 13% 0% 3% 3.18 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 49% 26% 15% 3% 0% 8% 3.31 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.41 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 46% 28% 21% 3% 0% 3% 3.21 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 49% 28% 10% 0% 0% 13% 3.44 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 33% 28% 5% 0% 0% 33% 3.42 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.36 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.36 3.32 * Includes only the County 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 County Judges Percentage Judge Kraig Ecton All County Kraig Ecton Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 39% 30% Completely neutral 43% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 4% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 46% 53% Recommend retain 36% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 10% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 82% 77% Neither 10% 9% Total Not Retain 8% 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Kraig Ecton Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.36 Overall Average Grade 3.32 3.43 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.60 case after trial. 3.54 3.46 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.47 3.31 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.33 3.37 3.23 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.24 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.30 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.00 3.22 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.31 when circumstances are similar. 3.44 Q3. Overall Communication 3.43 3.49 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.52 the proceedings. 3.39 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Kraig Ecton All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Kraig Ecton 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Kraig Ecton Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.41 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.58 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.42 3.55 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.18 neutral manner. 3.18 3.31 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.36 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.21 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.44 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.42 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 11% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 39% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 43% Completely Neutral 50% 4% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 4% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Kraig Ecton All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Kraig Ecton Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Ecton be retained or not retained in office? 46% Strongly recommend retain 53% 36% Recommend retain 24% 10% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Ecton Judges* Total Retain 82% 77% 8% Neither 10% 9% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 8% 14% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Kraig Ecton All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Kraig Ecton (Sample Size 29) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Kraig Ecton All County Sample Size = 29 A B C D Fail DK/NA Kraig Ecton Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 11% 4% 4% 0% 15% 3.65 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 57% 14% 7% 7% 0% 14% 3.42 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 56% 15% 4% 7% 4% 15% 3.30 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 50% 11% 7% 4% 11% 18% 3.04 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 57% 7% 11% 7% 0% 18% 3.39 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 59% 4% 7% 0% 7% 22% 3.38 3.45 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 44% 7% 0% 0% 11% 37% 3.18 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 59% 7% 7% 0% 0% 26% 3.70 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.41 3.50 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 48% 11% 15% 4% 0% 22% 3.33 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 56% 15% 7% 0% 4% 19% 3.45 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 50% 23% 4% 0% 4% 19% 3.43 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.40 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 48% 11% 11% 7% 0% 22% 3.29 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 54% 11% 11% 0% 4% 21% 3.41 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 35% 15% 4% 0% 4% 42% 3.33 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 54% 8% 4% 4% 0% 31% 3.61 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 52% 22% 7% 0% 0% 19% 3.55 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.44 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 43% 21% 0% 7% 4% 25% 3.24 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 46% 7% 4% 4% 7% 32% 3.21 3.45 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 50% 7% 7% 4% 7% 25% 3.19 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.21 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.37 3.52 * Includes only the County 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 County Judges Percentage Judge Kraig Ecton All County Kraig Ecton Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 5% 13% Competely neutral 84% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 11% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.05 0.13 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 7% 13% Competely neutral 79% 74% Lenient sentencing total 14% 13% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.14 0.10 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 33% 70% Recommend retain 37% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 19% 7% Recommend not retain 4% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 7% Total Retain 70% 84% Neither 19% 7% Total Not Retain 11% 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Kraig Ecton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.37 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.35 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.65 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.42 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.30 manner. 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.04 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.41 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.50 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.39 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.38 case without bias. 3.45 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.18 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.70 their case. 3.54 3.40 Q3. Overall Communications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.33 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.45 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.43 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Kraig Ecton All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Kraig Ecton 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Kraig Ecton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.44 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.29 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.41 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.33 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.61 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.55 little wasted time. 3.48 3.21 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.45 3.24 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.21 possible outside pressure. 3.45 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.19 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.05 Kraig Ecton 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.14 Kraig Ecton 0.10 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Kraig Ecton All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Kraig Ecton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Ecton be retained or not retained in office? 33% Strongly recommend retain 70% 37% Recommend retain 14% 19% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 7% Judge Ecton Judges* 4% Total Retain 70% 84% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 19% 7% Total Not Retain 11% 10% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Kraig Ecton All County Judges* * Includes only the County 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 County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive 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 county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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 County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges 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 county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 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 County Judges [Please Note: Due to insufficient survey responses, the non-attorney results for Judge Ruth M. Acheson are not included in this report.] 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 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 county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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 County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges 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 county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 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 Ecton is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Kraig Ecton 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 5 10 0 6 54.5% Defense Attorneys 71 18 25 0 28 60.9% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 40 15 16 0 9 37.5% Total Attorneys 132 38 51 0 43 53.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 85 55 10 7 13 17.3% Law Enforcement 14 12 1 0 1 7.7% Defendant 190 95 85 1 9 8.6% Civil Litigant 117 78 30 3 6 6.9% Total Non-attorneys 406 240 126 11 29 10.4% Grand Total: 538 278 177 11 72 19.9% 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 County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 1359 477 428 0 454 48.8% Defense Attorneys 5458 1988 1427 0 2043 50.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 17 5 4 0 8 61.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 199 66 48 0 85 56.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1109 325 393 0 391 54.6% Total Attorneys 8142 2861 2300 0 2981 51.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 180 101 60 12 7 5.8% Witness 3505 2059 941 134 371 14.5% Other 336 221 82 9 24 9.4% Law Enforcement 3358 2551 368 73 366 12.2% Defendant 15702 7544 6825 179 1154 13.0% Civil Litigant 4907 2614 1583 103 607 18.3% Witness 629 340 133 17 139 28.0% Other 9 8 0 0 1 11.1% Jurors 4706 2082 550 95 1979 47.6% Employees, including Interpreters 400 106 49 0 245 69.8% Probation Officers 332 92 82 0 158 63.2% Total Non-attorneys 34064 17718 10673 622 5051 21.6% Grand Total: 42206 20579 12973 622 8032 27.5% * Includes only the County 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 County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 2995 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. 52% 15% 5% 2% 1% 25% 3.54 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 21% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.47 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 51% 19% 7% 2% 2% 19% 3.43 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 23% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 18% 10% 6% 6% 22% 3.00 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 52% 23% 10% 3% 3% 10% 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 17% 7% 3% 2% 27% 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 18% 11% 6% 6% 1% 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 21% 10% 4% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 53% 22% 9% 3% 4% 9% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 16% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 * Includes only the County 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 County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 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 53% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 77% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5051 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 17% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.54 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.48 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 16% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 14% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 14% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.45 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 11% 3% 2% 4% 26% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.50 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 14% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 18% 7% 3% 2% 4% 3.48 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.54 4d.Being prepared for cases. 70% 14% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.58 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 19% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% 12% 5% 2% 4% 18% 3.45 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 14% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 * Includes only the County 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 County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 13% Average 0.1 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 84% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 10% * Includes only the County 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)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Kraig Ecton 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County 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 Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Kraig Ecton, 140 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 94 agreed they had worked with Judge Ecton enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 94 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) 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 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.49 Attorneys 3.10 Total Non-Attorneys 3.66 Juror 3.97 Non-Attorney Other* 3.24 Table 1 Judge Kraig Ecton Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.49 3.10 3.66 3.97 3.24 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 82% Attorneys 62% Total Non-Attorneys 91% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 79% Table 2 Judge Kraig Ecton Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 82% 62% 91% 100% 79% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Kraig Ecton Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.19 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.76 3.65 3.96 3.21 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.42 3.69 3.95 3.36 Diligence 3.05 3.73 3.97 3.40 Demeanor 3.07 3.55 3.98 3.02 Fairness N/A 3.66 3.99 3.21 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 126 4 27 40% 45% Total Non- 946 233 67 13% 26% Attorneys Staff 15 0 6 53% 25% Jurors 150 3 37 26% 3% Other Non- 781 230 24 8% 47% 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 Kraig Ecton 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Ecton, 49 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 27 agreed they had worked with Judge Ecton enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 27 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. 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 (which was 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 6 ## Page 9 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 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 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 Kraig Ecton 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Kraig Ecton be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Kraig Ecton Total Retain 62% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 35% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 60% 50% 40% 23% 20% 12% 12% 12% 4% 8% 6% 8% 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 Ecton All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 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 Ecton 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 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.19 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.00 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.27 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.23 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.24 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 6 Case Management Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 26 Ecton Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 44% 22% -- 7% 4% 22% 3.24 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 56% 26% -- 11% 4% 4% 3.23 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 48% 22% -- 7% 4% 19% 3.27 3.46 Setting reasonable schedules for 48% 15% 15% 11% 4% 7% 3.00 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.19 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 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 Ecton 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 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.76 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.64 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.72 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 2.67 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.72 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 25 Ecton Judges Being able to identify and analyze 38% 27% 23% -- 8% 4% 2.92 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 38% 15% 23% 15% 4% 4% 2.72 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 32% 27% 14% 18% 5% 5% 2.67 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 38% 27% 8% 12% 12% 4% 2.72 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 38% 15% 23% 8% 12% 4% 2.64 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.76 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 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 Ecton 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 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.42 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.26 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.52 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 8 Communications Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 25 Ecton Judges Making sure all participants 73% 8% 12% -- 4% 4% 3.52 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 62% -- 19% 4% 4% 12% 3.26 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.42 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 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 Ecton 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 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 3.07 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.72 3.39 Treating participants with respect 3.08 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 9 Demeanor Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 25 Ecton Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 65% 12% 15% -- 4% 4% 3.40 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 54% 15% 12% 12% 4% 4% 3.08 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 46% 15% 12% 8% 15% 4% 2.72 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.07 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 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 Ecton 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 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.05 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.13 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 2.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 10 Diligence Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 25 Ecton Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 38% 27% 15% 12% 4% 4% 2.88 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 50% 19% 12% 8% 4% 8% 3.13 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 46% 15% 8% 8% 4% 19% 3.14 3.37 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.05 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Ecton in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 54% 40% 40% 30% 28% 15% 20% 11% 10% 5% 6% 1% 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 Ecton All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kraig Ecton, 91 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 67 agreed they had worked with Judge Ecton enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 67 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 16 ## Page 19 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: 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 Kraig Ecton 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Ecton be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Kraig Ecton Total Retain 91% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 10% Figure 10 100% 80% 71% 71% 60% 40% 20% 16% 20% 5% 5% 3% 5% 5% 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 Ecton All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 18 ## Page 21 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 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.55 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.56 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.55 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 12 Demeanor Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 67 Ecton Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 76% 16% -- -- 7% -- 3.54 3.61 Treating participants with respect 81% 9% 3% -- 7% -- 3.55 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 81% 7% 3% -- 7% 1% 3.56 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 79% 10% -- 1% 7% 1% 3.55 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.55 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 19 ## Page 22 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 3.66 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.67 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.52 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.57 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 13 Fairness Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 65 Ecton Judges Giving participants an opportunity 83% 8% 2% -- 5% 3% 3.70 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 77% 12% 3% -- 6% 2% 3.57 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 39% 6% -- -- 5% 50% 3.52 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 82% 9% -- 2% 5% 3% 3.67 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.66 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 20 ## Page 23 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 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.68 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.71 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.72 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 14 Communications Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 65 Ecton Judges Making sure all participants 80% 12% 2% -- 3% 3% 3.72 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 82% 12% -- 2% 3% 2% 3.71 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 79% 11% 8% -- 2% 2% 3.68 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 21 ## Page 24 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 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.73 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.73 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.64 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.84 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.75 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 15 Diligence Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 64 Ecton Judges Beginning court on time 76% 14% 3% -- 3% 5% 3.67 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 76% 14% 2% -- 2% 8% 3.75 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 83% 12% 2% -- -- 3% 3.84 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 62% 12% 3% 2% 2% 20% 3.64 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 77% 14% 3% -- 2% 5% 3.73 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.73 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 22 ## Page 25 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 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.65 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.62 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.63 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Ecton Table 16 Application of Law Judge Kraig Ecton All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 60 Ecton Judges Giving reasons for rulings 73% 8% 2% 3% 3% 12% 3.64 3.56 Willing to make decision without 55% 11% -- 3% 2% 29% 3.63 3.54 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 68% 14% 2% 2% 3% 12% 3.62 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.65 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Ecton is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Ecton is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 82% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 5% 4% 7% 5% 2% 3% 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 Ecton All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 24 ## Page 27 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 Ecton are. If you feel Judge Ecton generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 81% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 2% 9% 5% 7% 2% 3% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Ecton All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kraig Ecton 25

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

• 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026