John Eric Elliff

Evaluation history

• 2026 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
  Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge John Eric Elliff MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance criteria are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Elliff currently presides over domestic relations matters in the Denver District Court. Judge Elliff meets all aspects of the performance criteria on which he is evaluated. The Commission commends Judge Elliff for mentoring newer judges, his preparation and knowledge of the law. Judge Elliff’s written decisions are well reasoned, comprehensive and clear.  His notable strengths, as observed by the Commission and described in survey responses, include his professional judicial temperament, the clarity and promptness of his decisions, and his commitment to treating pro se litigants with respect. The Commission, based on its observation and analysis of survey responses, did not identify any evaluation category in which Judge Elliff displayed a notable weakness as to the performance criteria. Judge Elliff exceeded the Court’s productivity benchmark for civil and domestic relations cases. The Commission met with the Chief Judge of Denver District Court to discuss challenges facing the court system. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Elliff and observed him during court proceedings. It also reviewed opinions he authored, comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, case management data, and judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who interacted with him. The surveys reflected personal opinions regarding Judge Elliff in the categories of case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. A total of 8 attorneys and 10 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Elliff. The overall information and data reviewed supports the Commission’s recommendation that Judge Elliff meets performance standards. Judge Elliff was appointed to the Denver District Court in January 2011. Prior to his appointment, he was a partner in the Denver office of Husch Blackwell, where he specialized in commercial and intellectual property litigation. Judge Elliff has remained actively involved in several professional and community service initiatives, including serving as a mentor for “Law School Yes We Can,” an organization that supports underprivileged minority college students interested in attending law school. He also mentors other judges, serves on the Colorado Supreme Court Civil Rules Committee, and participates in the Underfunded Courthouse Committee, which works with judges, state officials, and county commissioners to support improvements to court facilities in rural communities throughout Colorado. Judge Elliff received his undergraduate degree from Washington University in St. Louis and law degree from the University of Colorado Law School.
• 2020 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 74.3% yes

  230,301 yes · 79,642 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, on a vote of 10-0, unanimously finds that the Honorable John Eric Elliff MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Elliff, reviewed orders he authored, observed him in court through online proceedings and by listening to recordings, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Elliff. Those surveyed were asked, “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Elliff meets judicial performance standards?”  Of the 22 attorneys responding to the surveys, 83% believe that Judge Elliff meets performance standards and 17% believe he does not meet performance standards.  Judge Elliff received ratings slightly below the statewide average among all District Court judges standing for retention with regard to the areas surveyed: (1) application and knowledge of law, (2) communications, (3) diligence, and (4) demeanor.  He received a rating slightly above the statewide average among all District Court judges standing for retention with regard to (1) fairness.  Overall, the Commission was impressed with Judge Elliff’s performance.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 73.8% yes

  108,738 yes · 38,563 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, on a vote of 10-0, recommends that Judge J. Eric Elliff BE RETAINED. The governor appointed Judge Elliff to the Denver District Court bench in January 2011.  Prior to his appointment, Judge Elliff was in private practice in Denver. Judge Elliff earned his undergraduate degree at Washington University in 1984 and his law degree from University of Colorado in 1987. Judge Elliff also teaches Advanced Trial Advocacy as an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado School of Law. His community service includes participation on the University of Colorado Law Alumni Board, presenting Continuing Legal Education classes, and judging high school mock trial events. During the current term, Judge Elliff presided over domestic relations court for one year, civil court for two years, and criminal court since January 2014. The Commission reviewed survey results of attorneys, appellate court judges, and non-attorneys and three of Judge Elliff’s written opinions. Selected members of the Commission observed Judge Elliff in court. The Commission then interviewed Judge Elliff. Of the attorneys surveyed, 93% recommended retention (far exceeding the average of 80% for all district court judges), 4% recommended against retention (well below the average of 11% for all district court judges), and 2% expressed no opinion. Of the non-attorneys surveyed, 95% recommended retention, just 2% recommended he not be retained, and 3% expressed no opinion. Analysis of all the data supports retention. In the surveys of attorney and non-attorneys, Judge Elliff received an overall combined average rating that exceeded the average combined rating of all district court judges standing for retention, although the Commission notes that the sample size was relatively small. The written comments offer further support for the recommendation to retain Judge Elliff. His reported strengths far outweighed and outnumbered weaknesses. Attorneys described Judge Elliff as prepared, courteous, “extraordinarily competent and highly intelligent with great courtroom demeanor,” “smart and diligent,” and “fair, neutral, knowledgeable and primarily interested in coming to a fair resolution of a dispute.” Non-attorneys had similar feedback:  “intelligent, organized, thoughtful, fair, impartial, unbiased and a consummate professional” and “treating all with dignity and respect,” and “polite, clear, fair.” Commissioner observations of Judge Elliff’s courtroom mirrored the survey responses.  The reviews of his written work demonstrate a thoughtful judge who knows the law and writes well.

Surveys & reports

• 2026 cycle
  • 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable J. Eric Elliff 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 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 J. Eric Elliff, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 15 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 15 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.86 3.96 4.00 3.89 4.00 3.74 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.86 3.74 3.96 4.00 3.89 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 85% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 91% 85% 100% 100% 100% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.86 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.47 4.00 4.00 4.00 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.83 4.00 4.00 4.00 Diligence 3.57 3.88 4.00 3.67 Demeanor 3.95 4.00 4.00 4.00 Fairness N/A 3.92 4.00 3.78 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 64 0 13 20% 46% Total Non- 74 5 8 11% 0% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 13 0 5 38% 0% Other Non- 61 5 3 5% 0% 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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Elliff, 13 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 7 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 7 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 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 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 of judicial performance 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge J. Eric Elliff be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge J. Eric Elliff Total Retain 85% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 14% Figure 3 100% 80% 71% 59% 60% 40% 21% 20% 14% 14% 9% 6% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.83 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.71 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 6 Case Management Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Elliff Judges Responses: 7 Promptly issuing a decision on the 71% 14% -- -- -- 14% 3.83 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 86% -- 14% -- -- -- 3.71 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 71% 14% -- -- -- 14% 3.83 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.47 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.29 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.71 3.14 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.50 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.33 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.43 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 7 Elliff Judges Being able to identify and 71% 14% -- 14% -- -- 3.43 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 57% 14% -- 14% -- 14% 3.33 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 57% 29% -- 14% -- -- 3.29 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.47 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.83 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.67 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 8 Communications Judge J. Eric Elliff Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 6 Judges Making sure all participants 86% -- -- -- -- 14% 4.00 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 71% -- 14% -- -- 14% 3.67 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.83 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.95 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.86 3.43 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 9 Demeanor All Judge J. Eric Elliff Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Judges Number of Responses: 7 Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 86% 14% -- -- -- -- 3.86 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.95 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.45 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming 3.71 3.35 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.67 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.29 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 10 Diligence Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 7 Elliff Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 57% 29% -- 14% -- -- 3.29 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 57% 29% -- -- -- 14% 3.67 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Elliff in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 50% 50% 48% 40% 29% 20% 11% 8% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge J. Eric Elliff, 8 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 8 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 8 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 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 June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 15 ## Page 18 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. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 16 ## Page 19 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 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 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Elliff be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge J. Eric Elliff Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 75% 80% 69% 60% 40% 25% 16% 20% 6% 6% 3% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 4.00 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.66 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 12 Demeanor Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.68 Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.92 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 4.00 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.86 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.88 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 13 Fairness Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 8 Judges Giving participants an 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 75% 13% -- -- -- 13% 3.86 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 88% -- -- -- -- 13% 4.00 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.92 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.74 Communications Overall Average 4.00 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 4.00 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 4.00 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 14 Communications Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Making sure all participants understand the 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 4.00 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.88 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 3.88 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.88 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 15 Diligence Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Beginning court on time 88% -- -- 13% -- -- 3.63 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.88 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 4.00 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 4.00 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 4.00 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 16 Application of Law Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 8 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 88% -- -- -- -- 13% 4.00 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 4.00 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Elliff is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Elliff is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 1 81% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 6% 5% 4% 0 Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff are. If you feel Judge Elliff generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 1 79% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 7% 5% 5% 0 Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 25
  • 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable J. Eric Elliff 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 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 J. Eric Elliff, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 15 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 15 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.86 3.96 4.00 3.89 4.00 3.74 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.86 3.74 3.96 4.00 3.89 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 85% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 91% 85% 100% 100% 100% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.86 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.47 4.00 4.00 4.00 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.83 4.00 4.00 4.00 Diligence 3.57 3.88 4.00 3.67 Demeanor 3.95 4.00 4.00 4.00 Fairness N/A 3.92 4.00 3.78 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 64 0 13 20% 46% Total Non- 74 5 8 11% 0% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 13 0 5 38% 0% Other Non- 61 5 3 5% 0% 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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Elliff, 13 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 7 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 7 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 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 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 of judicial performance 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge J. Eric Elliff be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge J. Eric Elliff Total Retain 85% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 14% Figure 3 100% 80% 71% 59% 60% 40% 21% 20% 14% 14% 9% 6% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.83 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.71 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 6 Case Management Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Elliff Judges Responses: 7 Promptly issuing a decision on the 71% 14% -- -- -- 14% 3.83 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 86% -- 14% -- -- -- 3.71 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 71% 14% -- -- -- 14% 3.83 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.47 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.29 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.71 3.14 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.50 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.33 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.43 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 7 Elliff Judges Being able to identify and 71% 14% -- 14% -- -- 3.43 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 57% 14% -- 14% -- 14% 3.33 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 57% 29% -- 14% -- -- 3.29 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.47 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.83 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.67 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 8 Communications Judge J. Eric Elliff Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 6 Judges Making sure all participants 86% -- -- -- -- 14% 4.00 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 71% -- 14% -- -- 14% 3.67 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.83 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.95 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.86 3.43 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 9 Demeanor All Judge J. Eric Elliff Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Judges Number of Responses: 7 Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 86% 14% -- -- -- -- 3.86 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.95 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.45 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming 3.71 3.35 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.67 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.29 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 10 Diligence Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 7 Elliff Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 57% 29% -- 14% -- -- 3.29 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 57% 29% -- -- -- 14% 3.67 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Elliff in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 50% 50% 48% 40% 29% 20% 11% 8% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge J. Eric Elliff, 8 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 8 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 8 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 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 June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 15 ## Page 18 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. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 16 ## Page 19 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 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 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Elliff be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge J. Eric Elliff Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 75% 80% 69% 60% 40% 25% 16% 20% 6% 6% 3% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 4.00 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.66 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 12 Demeanor Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.68 Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.92 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 4.00 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.86 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.88 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 13 Fairness Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 8 Judges Giving participants an 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 75% 13% -- -- -- 13% 3.86 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 88% -- -- -- -- 13% 4.00 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.92 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.74 Communications Overall Average 4.00 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 4.00 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 4.00 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 14 Communications Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Making sure all participants understand the 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 4.00 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.88 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 3.88 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.88 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 15 Diligence Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Beginning court on time 88% -- -- 13% -- -- 3.63 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.88 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 4.00 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 4.00 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 4.00 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 16 Application of Law Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 8 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 88% -- -- -- -- 13% 4.00 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 4.00 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Elliff is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Elliff is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 1 81% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 6% 5% 4% 0 Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff are. If you feel Judge Elliff generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 1 79% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 7% 5% 5% 0 Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 25
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.3

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    83%

    38 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    100%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge J. Eric Elliff 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Elliff, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 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 Elliff All District Judges Judge Elliff All District Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 92% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 17% 12% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Elliff All District Judges Judge Elliff All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Elliff Elliff Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 83% 83% 100% 92% standards No, does not meet 17% 12% 0% 6% 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 J. Eric Elliff 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.0 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.3 Communications 3.5 3.2 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 4.0 Fairness 3.7 Judge Elliff All District Judges Judge All District Elliff Judges Case 3.4 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.0 3.3 Law Communications 3.3 3.5 Diligence 3.2 3.4 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 4.0 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 38 19% 58% 22 Non- 3 20% 100% 3 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Elliff received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Elliff Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Elliff Attorneys 3.4 Judge Elliff Non-Attorneys District Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.5 3.6 - 10 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.5 3.1 - 20 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.4 3.6 - 16 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 - 20 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Elliff Overall 3 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Elliff Attorneys 3 Judge Elliff Non-Attorneys 3.5 District Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.5 21 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 19 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.3 3 N/A 16 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 19 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3 3.3 3 N/A 19 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3 3.6 N/A 3.0 1 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 2 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Elliff Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Elliff Attorneys 3.2 Judge Elliff Non-Attorneys 3.7 District Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.7 22 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 16 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Elliff Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Elliff Attorneys 3.3 Judge Elliff Non-Attorneys 3.9 District Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.3 3.5 3.2 4.0 22 Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.0 22 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.2 3.4 3.1 4.0 22 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 3 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Elliff Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Elliff Attorneys 3 Judge Elliff Non-Attorneys 4.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 11 ## Page 12 District Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 18 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.1 3.4 3.1 N/A 18 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.1 3.4 3.1 N/A 18 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 3 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Elliff Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Elliff Attorneys Judge Elliff Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Elliff District Judge Elliff Judge Elliff Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 3 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Elliff 11 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Elliff Score 3.8 District Judges Number of Judge Elliff Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 3.6 11 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Elliff, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 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 J. Eric Elliff 15 ## Page 16 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 J. Eric Elliff 16 ## Page 17 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 J. Eric Elliff 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 11 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Elliff to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 195 38 0 22 58% Staff 0 0 0 0 - Others 3 3 0 3 - Total Non-Attorneys 3 3 0 3 100% Total Respondents 198 41 0 25 61% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 19
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable J. Eric Elliff 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 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 J. Eric Elliff, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 15 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 15 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.86 3.96 4.00 3.89 4.00 3.74 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.86 3.74 3.96 4.00 3.89 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 85% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 91% 85% 100% 100% 100% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge J. Eric Elliff Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.86 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.47 4.00 4.00 4.00 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.83 4.00 4.00 4.00 Diligence 3.57 3.88 4.00 3.67 Demeanor 3.95 4.00 4.00 4.00 Fairness N/A 3.92 4.00 3.78 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 64 0 13 20% 46% Total Non- 74 5 8 11% 0% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 13 0 5 38% 0% Other Non- 61 5 3 5% 0% 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. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Elliff, 13 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 7 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 7 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 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 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 of judicial performance 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. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge J. Eric Elliff be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge J. Eric Elliff Total Retain 85% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 14% Figure 3 100% 80% 71% 59% 60% 40% 21% 20% 14% 14% 9% 6% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.83 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.71 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 6 Case Management Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Elliff Judges Responses: 7 Promptly issuing a decision on the 71% 14% -- -- -- 14% 3.83 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 86% -- 14% -- -- -- 3.71 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 71% 14% -- -- -- 14% 3.83 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.47 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.29 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.71 3.14 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.50 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.33 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.43 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 7 Elliff Judges Being able to identify and 71% 14% -- 14% -- -- 3.43 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 57% 14% -- 14% -- 14% 3.33 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 50% -- -- -- -- 3.50 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 57% 29% -- 14% -- -- 3.29 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.47 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.83 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.67 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 8 Communications Judge J. Eric Elliff Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 6 Judges Making sure all participants 86% -- -- -- -- 14% 4.00 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 71% -- 14% -- -- 14% 3.67 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.83 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.95 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.86 3.43 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 9 Demeanor All Judge J. Eric Elliff Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Judges Number of Responses: 7 Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 86% 14% -- -- -- -- 3.86 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.95 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff 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 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.45 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming 3.71 3.35 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.67 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.29 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 10 Diligence Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 7 Elliff Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 57% 29% -- 14% -- -- 3.29 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 57% 29% -- -- -- 14% 3.67 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Elliff in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 50% 50% 48% 40% 29% 20% 11% 8% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge J. Eric Elliff, 8 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 8 agreed they had worked with Judge Elliff enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 8 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 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 June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 15 ## Page 18 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. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 16 ## Page 19 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 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 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Elliff be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge J. Eric Elliff Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 75% 80% 69% 60% 40% 25% 16% 20% 6% 6% 3% 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 Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 4.00 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.66 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 12 Demeanor Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.68 Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.92 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 4.00 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.86 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.88 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 13 Fairness Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 8 Judges Giving participants an 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 75% 13% -- -- -- 13% 3.86 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 88% -- -- -- -- 13% 4.00 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.92 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.74 Communications Overall Average 4.00 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 4.00 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 4.00 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 14 Communications Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Making sure all participants understand the 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 4.00 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.88 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 3.88 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.88 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 15 Diligence Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 8 Elliff Judges Beginning court on time 88% -- -- 13% -- -- 3.63 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 88% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.88 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.88 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 4.00 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 4.00 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 4.00 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Elliff Table 16 Application of Law Judge J. Eric Elliff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Elliff Number of Responses: 8 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 88% -- -- -- -- 13% 4.00 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 4.00 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Elliff is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Elliff is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 1 81% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 6% 5% 4% 0 Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 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 Elliff are. If you feel Judge Elliff generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 1 79% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 7% 5% 5% 0 Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Elliff All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge J. Eric Elliff 25
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

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

• 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026