← All judges

Scott Timothy Erickson

Trial Court · San Miguel · San Miguel

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2014 retention cycle
    Trial Court · San Miguel · San Miguel
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 84.2% yes
    2,044 yes · 385 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a unanimous vote (with one member absent and one vacancy), recommends Judge Scott Timothy Erickson BE RETAINED. Judge Erickson received an undergraduate degree from North Park College in Illinois in 1983.  He received his law degree from the University of Denver in 1988.  Judge Erickson was appointed as a county court judge in July in 2012.  Judge Erickson takes an interest in his community and, among other things, has conducted training seminars for organizations in the community.  He also has prior experience as a municipal court judge. The Commission reviewed his decisions, reviewed the survey results, conducted a personal interview, interviewed the Chief Judge, the District Attorney and the Public Defender and reviewed Judge Erickson’s written self-evaluation.  Both attorneys and non-attorneys were surveyed regarding Judge Erickson’s performance.  Of the attorneys responding to the survey 89% recommended to retain and 11% not to retain. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey 74% recommended to retain, 15% not to retain, and 11% made no recommendation regarding retention.  However, given the small number of responses from both groups, the survey results may not be significant. Judge Erickson’s workload consists of 25% civil, 10% criminal, 40% misdemeanor, 10% traffic, 5% traffic infractions, and 10% small claims.  The commission noted the amount of respect he holds for every person before him.  Overall, the commission unanimously voted that he be retained.

Surveys & reports

  • 2014 cycle
    • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee SSccootttt TT.. EErriicckkssoonn 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Scott T. Erickson San Miguel County Courthouse P.O. Box 919 Telluride, CO 81435 Dear Judge Erickson: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Scott T. Erickson received an overall combined average grade of 3.43 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.44, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.41, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Erickson Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.43 3.44 3.41 Sample Size - 9 29 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Erickson’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Erickson Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.43 3.44 9 3.41 29 Overall 3.43 3.44 9 3.41 29 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Erickson’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Erickson Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 4.00 1 3% 3.39 28 97% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSccoot TT.. EErriicckkssoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 99)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Scott T. Erickson Scott T. All County Sample Size = 9 A B C D Fail DK/NA Erickson Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 56% 11% 0% 0% 0% 33% 3.83 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 56% 22% 0% 0% 11% 11% 3.25 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.61 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 33% 0% 0% 0% 11% 3.63 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 56% 33% 0% 0% 11% 0% 3.22 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 44% 33% 0% 0% 11% 11% 3.13 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 29% 14% 0% 0% 14% 3.33 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.33 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 56% 44% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.56 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 11% 11% 11% 0% 22% 3.14 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.35 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 78% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.78 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 56% 22% 11% 11% 0% 0% 3.22 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.59 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 33% 0% 11% 0% 0% 3.33 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 44% 22% 11% 0% 0% 22% 3.43 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 44% 11% 11% 0% 11% 22% 3.00 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.44 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Scott T. Erickson Scott T. All County Erickson Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 14% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 25% Completely neutral 57% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 56% 55% Recommend retain 33% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 0% 9% Recommend not retain 11% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 89% 78% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 11% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Scott T. Erickson Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.44 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.61 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.83 case after trial. 3.50 3.67 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.25 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.67 3.37 3.33 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.63 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.22 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 3.33 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.35 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.56 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.14 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Scott T. Erickson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Scott T. Erickson 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Scott T. Erickson Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.59 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.67 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.78 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.67 neutral manner. 3.20 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.25 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.33 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.43 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.00 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 14% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 29% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 57% Completely Neutral 51% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Scott T. Erickson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Scott T. Erickson Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Erickson be retained or not retained in office? 56% Strongly recommend retain 55% 33% Recommend retain 23% 0% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Erickson Judges* Total Retain 89% 78% 11% Neither 0% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 11% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Scott T. Erickson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee SSccoot TT.. EErriicckkssoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2299)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Scott T. Erickson Scott T. All County Sample Size = 29 A B C D Fail DK/NA Erickson Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 61% 21% 14% 0% 0% 4% 3.48 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 22% 0% 4% 0% 0% 3.67 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 68% 18% 7% 4% 4% 0% 3.43 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 67% 19% 7% 4% 4% 0% 3.41 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 11% 7% 4% 0% 0% 3.64 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 75% 7% 7% 0% 11% 0% 3.36 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 57% 7% 7% 4% 4% 21% 3.41 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 4% 8% 4% 8% 8% 3.33 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.44 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 75% 11% 4% 7% 0% 4% 3.59 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 75% 18% 0% 4% 4% 0% 3.57 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 75% 18% 0% 7% 0% 0% 3.61 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.59 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 61% 25% 11% 4% 0% 0% 3.43 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 50% 39% 7% 4% 0% 0% 3.36 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 36% 0% 4% 0% 11% 3.48 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 59% 19% 11% 4% 0% 7% 3.44 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 39% 36% 18% 7% 0% 0% 3.07 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.36 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 11% 7% 4% 7% 7% 3.31 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 46% 14% 4% 7% 4% 25% 3.24 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 43% 25% 7% 4% 11% 11% 2.96 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.17 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.41 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Scott T. Erickson Scott T. All County Erickson Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 18% 11% Competely neutral 61% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 23% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.22 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% 10% Competely neutral 29% 76% Lenient sentencing total 60% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.76 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 52% 68% Recommend retain 22% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 11% 6% Recommend not retain 4% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 5% Total Retain 74% 86% Neither 11% 6% Total Not Retain 15% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Scott T. Erickson Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.41 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.50 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.48 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.67 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.43 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.41 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.44 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.64 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.36 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.41 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.33 or her case. 3.60 3.59 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.59 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.57 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.61 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Scott T. Erickson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Scott T. Erickson 11 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Scott T. Erickson Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.36 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.43 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.36 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.48 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.44 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.07 little wasted time. 3.51 3.17 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.31 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.24 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.96 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.22 Scott T. Erickson 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.76 Scott T. Erickson -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Scott T. Erickson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 12 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Scott T. Erickson Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Erickson be retained or not retained in office? 52% Strongly recommend retain 68% 22% Recommend retain 18% 11% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Erickson Judges* 4% Total Retain 74% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 11% 6% Total Not Retain 15% 8% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Scott T. Erickson All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 17 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 18 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Erickson is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Scott T. Erickson Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Defense Attorneys 15 6 2 0 7 53.8% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Other Attorneys Civil 3 2 1 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 21 8 4 0 9 52.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 8 2 1 0 5 71.4% Law Enforcement 24 8 6 0 10 55.6% Defendant 175 51 116 3 5 8.5% Civil Litigant 22 7 13 0 2 22.2% Other 3 1 0 0 2 66.7% Jurors 6 5 0 0 1 16.7% Employees, including Interpreters 7 1 2 0 4 80.0% Total Non-attorneys 245 75 138 3 29 27.1% Grand Total: 266 83 142 3 38 30.6% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page

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