← All judges

Anthony Douglas Edwards

Trial Court · San Juan · San Juan

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2024 retention cycle
    Trial Court · San Juan · San Juan
    Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 87.4% yes
    471 yes · 68 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: *Insufficient responses to publish Survey Reports Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Sixth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance by a vote of 10-0 finds that Judge Anthony D. Edwards MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Commission noted Judge Edwards’ relatively small docket in his part time rural judgeship which limited survey participation. Judge Edwards believes that his ability to adequately prepare for hearings in advance allows his court to be effective and efficient. Interviewees noted that Judge Edwards allows the parties involved “a fair shot” and the feeling of being heard.  It was noted that the docket could run a little long.  Judge Edwards was praised for his use of Webex as many of his hearing participants are from out of town. Judge Edwards is seen as fair. He is working toward accessing more services for litigants such as victim and pretrial support that is readily available in other parts of the Sixth Judicial District. The Commission observed Judge Edwards in court via Webex; reviewed decisions he authored and his self-evaluation; met (separately) with Chief Judge Wilson, the Public Defender, and the District Attorney; and conducted a personal interview with Judge Edwards. Judge Edwards did not receive a sufficient number of responses from the survey to issue a report. Approximately 80% of his cases are misdemeanor and traffic offenses with a few criminal cases as assigned. The Commission believes that Judge Edwards has proven to be a good judicial fit for San Juan County and Colorado.
  • 2016 retention cycle
    Trial Court · San Juan · San Juan
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 86.3% yes
    396 yes · 63 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Sixth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Anthony Douglas Edwards BE RETAINED. Judge Edwards was appointed to the County Court for the Sixth Judicial District (San Juan County) in July, 2014.  He earned a Bachelor of Science Degree from Capella University in 2002, a Master of Water Resources Degree from the University of New Mexico in 2007, and a Juris Doctorate from the University of New Mexico in 2009.  He served in the U.S. Army from 1990-1994.  He has worked as an Environmental Scientist and Economic Development Coordinator and served as the Owner’s Representative for the San Juan County School District’s rehabilitation and renovation of the Silverton School.  He has been in private practice since May 2010, and presently maintains his part-time civil law practice in Silverton.  He also serves as the Town of Silverton Municipal Judge. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Edwards, reviewed decisions he authored, his self-evaluation, and discussed his performance with representatives of the Public Defender’s  and District Attorney’s Offices.  Some members of the Commission had the opportunity to observe him in court.  The Commission also reviewed a small number of comments from the public and the survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared in his court.  Due to his relatively short tenure at this part-time rural judgeship, there were only three completed surveys from attorneys and two from non-attorneys.  In response to the survey question “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Edwards be retained in office, or not be retained in office”, two attorneys recommended that Judge Edwards be retained and one made no recommendation.  Of the two non-attorneys’ completing the survey, both recommended Judge Edwards be retained.  Judge Edwards received an overall combined average rating in the survey results from attorney’s that was above the average combined rating of all County Judges standing for retention this election.  Judge Edwards received an overall combined average rating in the survey results from non-attorney’s that was below the average combined rating of all County Judges standing for retention this election. Judge Edwards presided over misdemeanor criminal, traffic and some civil cases in his courtroom located in Silverton.  Judge Edwards was described as fair and thoughtful and having generated respect from the bench even while gaining experience as a recently appointed Judge.  Judge Edwards demonstrates a commitment to improving his and other rural county court communications and knowledge by use of electronic means and his considerable computer skills.  Along with other newly appointed County Court Judges, he is participating in the development of a new County Court Bench Book.  The commission agrees with others’ observations that Judge Edwards is personable, eager to learn, and does not hesitate to seek advice from other judges.  The commission is impressed by Judge Edwards’ use of all resources available to him and that he has proven to be a very good County Court Judge serving well the needs of San Juan County and Colorado.

Surveys & reports

  • 2016 cycle
    • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Anthony D. Edwards 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 Anthony D. Edwards, 11 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 5 agreed they had worked with Judge Edwards enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 5 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 3.41 Attorneys 3.56 Total Non-Attorneys 3.17 Juror N/A Non-Attorney Other* 3.17 Table 1 Judge Anthony D. Edwards Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.41 3.56 3.17 N/A 3.17 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 80% Attorneys 67% Total Non-Attorneys 100% Juror N/A Non-Attorney Other 100% Table 2 Judge Anthony D. Edwards Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 80% 67% 100% N/A 100% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Anthony D. Edwards Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.44 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.53 4.00 N/A 4.00 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.33 3.00 N/A 3.00 Diligence 3.50 3.10 N/A 3.10 Demeanor 4.00 3.25 N/A 3.25 Fairness N/A 2.50 N/A 2.50 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 12 0 3 42% 40% Total Non- 78 36 2 14% 67% Attorneys Staff 6 0 2 83% 60% Jurors 0 0 0 NA NA Other Non- 72 36 0 3% 100% 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 Anthony D. Edwards 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Edwards, 5 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 3 agreed they had worked with Judge Edwards enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 3 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 Anthony D. Edwards 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 Anthony D. Edwards 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 Anthony D. Edwards 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Anthony D. Edwards be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Anthony D. Edwards Total Retain 67% Neither 33% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 67% 60% 40% 33% 20% 12% 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 Edwards All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 Edwards 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 3.44 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.50 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.00 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.33 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 6 Case Management Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Edwards Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 33% -- -- -- -- 67% 4.00 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 33% -- 33% -- -- 33% 3.00 3.46 Setting reasonable schedules for 33% 33% -- -- -- 33% 3.50 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.44 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 Edwards 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 3.53 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.67 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.67 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.50 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.33 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Edwards Judges Being able to identify and analyze 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.53 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 Edwards 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 3.33 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.33 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 8 Communications Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Edwards Judges Making sure all participants 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.33 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 Edwards 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 4.00 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.39 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 9 Demeanor Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Edwards Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 Edwards 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 3.50 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.67 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 10 Diligence Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Edwards Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 67% -- -- -- -- 33% 4.00 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.50 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Edwards in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 1 0.8 0.6 54% 0.4 28% 0.2 11% 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 Edwards All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Anthony D. Edwards, 6 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 2 agreed they had worked with Judge Edwards enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 2 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 Anthony D. Edwards 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 Anthony D. Edwards 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 Anthony D. Edwards 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Edwards be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Anthony D. Edwards Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 100% 80% 71% 60% 40% 16% 20% 5% 3% 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 Edwards All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 3.25 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.50 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.00 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.50 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 12 Demeanor Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Edwards Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.61 Treating participants with respect 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.25 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 2.50 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 2.00 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.00 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.00 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 13 Fairness Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Edwards Judges Giving participants an opportunity -- -- 100% -- -- -- 2.00 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to -- -- 100% -- -- -- 2.00 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 2.50 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 3.00 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.00 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 2.50 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 14 Communications Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Edwards Judges Making sure all participants 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can -- 50% 50% -- -- -- 2.50 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.00 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 3.10 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.00 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 2.00 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 15 Diligence Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Edwards Judges Beginning court on time -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” -- -- 100% -- -- -- 2.00 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so -- 100% -- -- -- -- 3.00 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.10 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 4.00 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 4.00 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 4.00 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Edwards Table 16 Application of Law Judge Anthony D. Edwards All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 2 Edwards Judges Giving reasons for rulings 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.54 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 4.00 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Edwards is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Edwards is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 1 80% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 7% 5% 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 Edwards All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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 Edwards are. If you feel Judge Edwards generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 1 0.8 63% 0.6 0.4 0.2 5% 2% 2% 2% 0 Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Edwards All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Anthony D. Edwards 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