← All judges

Deni Estelle Eiring

Trial Court · Cheyenne · Cheyenne

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2024 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Cheyenne · Cheyenne
    Commission vote: 6 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 72.0% yes
    704 yes · 274 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) *Insufficient responses to publish 2023 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Deni Estelle Eiring MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by a vote of 6-0, with two commissioners absent and two Commissioner vacancies, and unanimously recommends her for retention. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. In evaluating Judge Eiring, the commission reviewed her written orders, observed her in the courtroom, reviewed her self-evaluation and cases, and interviewed representatives from both the District Attorney’s office and the Public Defender’s office and survey results. The Commission relied on several sources of information to make its determination that Judge Eiring meets performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Eiring, reviewed her written opinions, observed her in court, and interviewed representatives from the Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office. Judge Eiring presides over misdemeanor, civil, small claims, and misdemeanor traffic in the Fifteenth Judicial District. Judge Eiring has excellent command of the courtroom and docket control. The Commission is pleased that the survey results and interviews demonstrate her self-reflective ability to balance her empathy and authority as a judge. Those surveyed were asked, “Does Judge Eiring meet judicial performance standards?”  Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 100% believe Judge Eiring meets performance standards. Of the non-attorneys that were surveyed, 75% believe that Judge Eiring meets performance standards while 25% had no opinion. Judge Eiring received ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys combined that showed she was knowledgeable and proficient in all the areas surveyed: (1) case management, (2) application and knowledge of law, (3) communication, (4) diligence, (5) demeanor, and (6) fairness. She has demonstrated an exceptional ability to understand and apply the law. Her rulings, both written and oral, are thorough, articulate, and well-reasoned. Finally, she has demonstrated service to the legal profession by accepting a position as a magistrate in the 16th Judicial District, in addition to her work as a judge in Cheyenne County. Judge Eiring believes community involvement is the lifeblood of a small community. She volunteers with the local Boy Scout troop, and The Match bone marrow and blood registry. She wants to set an example for the people who do community service as part of their sentencing to see her serving the community too.

Surveys & reports

  • 2024 cycle
    • 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge D eni E. Eiring 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 Eiring, 6 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 6 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 96 2 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 2 Non-attorney email Invite 139 1 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 3 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 4 Total N/A 6 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 Deni E. Eiring 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.6 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Eiring Overall Judge Eiring Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.6 6 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 100% 75% 2 3 standards No, does not meet performance 0% 0% 0 0 standards No opinion 0% 25% 0 1 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Eiring Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.5 Communications 3.7 Diligence 3.6 Demeanor 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Eiring Score Judge Eiring Number of Score Responses Case Management 3.5 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.5 6 Communications 3.7 6 Diligence 3.6 6 Demeanor 3.6 6 Fairness 3.5 6 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.5 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 3.6 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.2 3.0 3.2 5 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.8 3.5 4.0 6 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 3.2 3.0 3.2 5 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.5 3.0 3.8 6 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.8 3.5 4.0 5 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.5 Attorneys 3.2 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.5 3.0 3.8 6 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.7 Attorneys 3.2 Non-Attorneys 3.9 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.5 3.0 3.8 6 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 4.0 N/A 4.0 4 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 4.0 N/A 4.0 4 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.6 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.8 3.5 4.0 6 Treats participants with respect. 3.5 3.0 3.8 6 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 3.2 N/A 3.2 4 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.6 Attorneys 3.2 Non-Attorneys 3.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 4.0 N/A 4.0 4 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Is prepared for cases 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Manages court proceedings so there is little 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.5 Attorneys 2.8 Non-Attorneys 3.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 4.0 N/A 4.0 4 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Gives each side enough time to present their 4.0 N/A 4.0 4 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 2.5 2.5 N/A 2 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 2.5 2.5 N/A 2 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 3.0 3.0 N/A 2 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Deni E. Eiring 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Eiring, 6 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 6 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 Deni E. Eiring 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 Deni E. Eiring 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 Deni E. Eiring 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 Deni E. Eiring 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 Deni E. Eiring 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 Deni E. Eiring 18

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