← All judges

Terry Fox

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2022 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards
    Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Terry Fox MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10-0 with one recusal. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Fox has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals for 11 years and is now one of the most senior members on the court. The Commission finds that Judge Fox writes timely, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinions. At oral argument, she asks good questions and is exceptionally courteous to all parties. Judge Fox is to be commended for volunteering for a special division to address the pandemic-related backlog, which has added to her already significant caseload. The Commission finds that Judge Fox is a valuable asset to the Court of Appeals. To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Fox, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of her legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. One survey question asked whether Judge Fox met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 71% answered yes, 21% answered no, and 8% had no opinion. Of the judges who responded to that question, 91% answered yes, 7% answered no and 3% expressed no opinion. A total of 75 attorneys and judges responded to the survey.
  • 2014 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 66.4% yes
    1,022,315 yes · 517,691 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 State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10 to 0 that Judge Terry Fox BE RETAINED. Judge Fox was sworn in as a Judge on the Court of Appeals in January, 2011.  She earned a bachelor's degree from the Colorado School of Mines in 1989.  She earned her law degree from the South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas in 1993.  Before her appointment, she was in private practice, worked in the Office of the Colorado Attorney General, and served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Colorado, where she was on the U.S. Attorney's Advisory Council and the Diversity Committee.  She now serves as a District Director for the National Association of Women Judges and works with the Colorado Supreme Court's Board of Law Examiners. She is part of the Colorado Judicial Institute, and participates in community and civic education. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Fox, read opinions that she authored, observed her in court, reviewed her self-evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding her performance.  Among the survey questions was "how strongly do you recommend that Judge Fox be retained in office, or not be retained in office?"  Of attorneys responding to the survey, 69% recommended to retain, 13% not to retain, and 18% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Of judges responding to the survey, 88% recommended to retain, 2% not to retain, and 10% made no recommendation regarding retention. Attorney survey responses indicate that Judge Fox' performance was strong in the areas of treating parties equally, courtesy toward attorneys, and issuing opinions in a timely fashion.  Attorney responses also indicate that she is weak in the areas of making reasoned decisions, writing opinions that are clear, writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the decision, and refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided.  The Commission's observations of Judge Fox during oral argument showed that she was well-prepared. The survey responses from trial and appellate judges commend her involvement in community activities and her work ethic.  Likewise, the Commission recognizes that Judge Fox takes a particular interest in the community, and volunteers her time for numerous educational and mentoring activities.  A few attorney comments indicate that Judge Fox' opinions seem more focused on reaching a particular conclusion than in explaining a clear line of reasoning.  Based upon its review of Judge Fox' opinions, the Commission found that while some of them lacked in-depth analysis, others were thoughtful and well-reasoned.   The Commission believes that Judge Fox should not allow her concern for timeliness of opinions to compromise the depth of her legal analysis or the clarity of her writing.

Surveys & reports

  • 2022 cycle
    • 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMaarriiaa TTeerreessaa FFooxx 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Maria Teresa Fox Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Fox: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey. 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 third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides a copy of the questionnaire that was used for attorneys. 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 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys 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. Attorneys assigned Judge Maria Teresa Fox an overall average grade of 3.27. Judge Fox Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Fox Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 3.27 71 All Years 3.27 71 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa TTeerreessaa FFooxx ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7711)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Maria Teresa Fox Judge Fox All COA Judges* Sample Size = 71 A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 62% 17% 7% 4% 6% 4% 3.31 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 61% 14% 8% 3% 3% 11% 3.43 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 65% 11% 4% 1% 6% 13% 3.47 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 69% 11% 4% 4% 4% 7% 3.47 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 56% 4% 1% 0% 1% 37% 3.80 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 15% 10% 6% 4% 13% 3.21 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.45 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 28% 13% 3% 10% 0% 3.00 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 25% 15% 5% 10% 0% 2.90 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 63% 20% 8% 0% 3% 8% 3.51 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 50% 20% 5% 5% 5% 15% 3.24 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 48% 15% 20% 8% 10% 0% 2.83 2.83 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 48% 20% 8% 13% 3% 10% 3.08 3.07 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.09 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.27 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge Maria Teresa Fox Judge Fox All COA Judges* How strongly do you recommend that Judge Fox be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 46% 43% Recommend retain 27% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 13% Recommend not retain 1% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 9% Total Retain 73% 69% Neither 14% 13% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 45% 42% Recommend retain 27% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 13% Recommend not retain 1% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% 1% Total Retain 72% 68% Neither 14% 13% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Don't Know 1% 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Maria Teresa Fox Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades 3.27 Overall average grade 3.25 3.45 Question 2 average grade 3.42 3.31 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.14 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.43 answer questions. 3.35 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.47 economic status. 3.48 3.47 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.42 3.80 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.77 3.21 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.36 3.09 Question 3 average grade 3.08 3.00 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.11 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.90 basis of the Court's decision. 3.02 3.51 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.29 3.24 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.18 2.83 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.83 3.08 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.07 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Fox All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 8 Judge Maria Teresa Fox Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Fox be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 46% Strongly recommend retain 43% 27% Somewhat recommend retain 26% Excluding DK Respondents 14% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Judge Fox All COA Judges* Total Retain 73% 69% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain Neither 14% 13% 8% Total Not Retain 12% 17% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 45% Strongly recommend retain 42% 27% Somewhat recommend retain 26% 14% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Including DK Respondents 1% Somewhat recommend not retain Judge Fox All COA Judges* 8% Total Retain 72% 68% Neither 14% 13% 11% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total DK 1% 1% Don't know enough to make a 1% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Fox All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. The list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a COA judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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. 7 ## Page 11 Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals 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 State 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. 8 ## Page 12 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2012, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 22.7% for Judge Fox and 17.7% for all Court of Appeals judges. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2012 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Fox is 22.7% and the cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges is 21.7%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and the cooperation rate for Judge Fox. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 to 2012. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Fox 444 242 131 71 22.7% All Court of 13724 10173 1333 2199 17.7% Appeals Judges* * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Sample Size = 2199 Grade (0.0 to A B C D Fail DK/NA 4.0 scale) Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 54% 18% 10% 6% 7% 6% 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 17% 8% 4% 3% 15% 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 57% 10% 6% 3% 3% 21% 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 7% 4% 3% 14% 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 49% 4% 2% 0% 1% 44% 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 15% 8% 3% 3% 20% 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 46% 25% 13% 6% 4% 6% 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 24% 12% 8% 5% 6% 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 24% 12% 3% 2% 10% 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 8% 5% 4% 19% 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 47% 18% 12% 11% 10% 2% 2.83 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 18% 10% 5% 6% 14% 3.07 Question 3 Average Grade 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 43% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 69% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 42% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 68% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 16 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 17 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6
    • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Overall score
      3.6
      judge rating, 0–4 scale
      Attorneys recommend
      71%
      134 respondents
      Non-attorneys recommend
      91%
      respondent count not on record
  • 2014 cycle
    • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMaarriiaa TTeerreessaa FFooxx 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Maria Teresa Fox Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Fox: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey. 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 third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides a copy of the questionnaire that was used for attorneys. 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 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys 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. Attorneys assigned Judge Maria Teresa Fox an overall average grade of 3.27. Judge Fox Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Fox Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 3.27 71 All Years 3.27 71 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa TTeerreessaa FFooxx ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7711)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Maria Teresa Fox Judge Fox All COA Judges* Sample Size = 71 A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 62% 17% 7% 4% 6% 4% 3.31 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 61% 14% 8% 3% 3% 11% 3.43 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 65% 11% 4% 1% 6% 13% 3.47 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 69% 11% 4% 4% 4% 7% 3.47 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 56% 4% 1% 0% 1% 37% 3.80 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 15% 10% 6% 4% 13% 3.21 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.45 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 28% 13% 3% 10% 0% 3.00 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 25% 15% 5% 10% 0% 2.90 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 63% 20% 8% 0% 3% 8% 3.51 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 50% 20% 5% 5% 5% 15% 3.24 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 48% 15% 20% 8% 10% 0% 2.83 2.83 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 48% 20% 8% 13% 3% 10% 3.08 3.07 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.09 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.27 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge Maria Teresa Fox Judge Fox All COA Judges* How strongly do you recommend that Judge Fox be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 46% 43% Recommend retain 27% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 13% Recommend not retain 1% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 9% Total Retain 73% 69% Neither 14% 13% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 45% 42% Recommend retain 27% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 13% Recommend not retain 1% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% 1% Total Retain 72% 68% Neither 14% 13% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Don't Know 1% 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Maria Teresa Fox Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades 3.27 Overall average grade 3.25 3.45 Question 2 average grade 3.42 3.31 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.14 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.43 answer questions. 3.35 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.47 economic status. 3.48 3.47 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.42 3.80 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.77 3.21 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.36 3.09 Question 3 average grade 3.08 3.00 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.11 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.90 basis of the Court's decision. 3.02 3.51 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.29 3.24 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.18 2.83 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.83 3.08 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.07 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Fox All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 8 Judge Maria Teresa Fox Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Fox be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 46% Strongly recommend retain 43% 27% Somewhat recommend retain 26% Excluding DK Respondents 14% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Judge Fox All COA Judges* Total Retain 73% 69% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain Neither 14% 13% 8% Total Not Retain 12% 17% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 45% Strongly recommend retain 42% 27% Somewhat recommend retain 26% 14% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Including DK Respondents 1% Somewhat recommend not retain Judge Fox All COA Judges* 8% Total Retain 72% 68% Neither 14% 13% 11% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total DK 1% 1% Don't know enough to make a 1% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Fox All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. The list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a COA judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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. 7 ## Page 11 Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals 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 State 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. 8 ## Page 12 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2012, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 22.7% for Judge Fox and 17.7% for all Court of Appeals judges. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2012 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Fox is 22.7% and the cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges is 21.7%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and the cooperation rate for Judge Fox. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 to 2012. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Fox 444 242 131 71 22.7% All Court of 13724 10173 1333 2199 17.7% Appeals Judges* * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Sample Size = 2199 Grade (0.0 to A B C D Fail DK/NA 4.0 scale) Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 54% 18% 10% 6% 7% 6% 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 17% 8% 4% 3% 15% 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 57% 10% 6% 3% 3% 21% 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 7% 4% 3% 14% 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 49% 4% 2% 0% 1% 44% 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 15% 8% 3% 3% 20% 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 46% 25% 13% 6% 4% 6% 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 24% 12% 8% 5% 6% 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 24% 12% 3% 2% 10% 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 8% 5% 4% 19% 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 47% 18% 12% 11% 10% 2% 2.83 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 18% 10% 5% 6% 14% 3.07 Question 3 Average Grade 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 43% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 69% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 42% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 68% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 16 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 17 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6
    • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMaarriiaa TTeerreessaa FFooxx 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report Court of Appeals ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Maria Teresa Fox Colorado Court of Appeals 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Fox: 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 heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent; and 2) district judges and appellate judges. It’s important to note that Court of Appeals non-attorney employees were also asked to evaluate the judges (using the non- attorney survey), but the results are not included in this report due to the very low number of completed surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey and the district/appellate judge survey. 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. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of district judges and appellate judges in both tabular and graphical form, and any comments the judges might have made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district/appellate judge questionnaire is in the final section of this report. 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. ## Page 3 Hon. Maria Teresa Fox March 26, 2014 Page 2 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 enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 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. Attorneys assigned Judge Maria Teresa Fox an overall average grade of 3.23, and the district judges and appellate judges assigned Judge Fox an overall average grade of 3.71, resulting in a combined average grade of 3.47. Judge Fox Average Grades Attorneys District and Combined (All Years) Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.47 3.23 3.71 Sample Size - 108 117 Table 1 The attorney results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2006 through 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Judge Fox's overall average grades from attorneys for up to eight years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Fox Average Sample Year Score Size 2006 NA NA 2007 NA NA 2008 NA NA 2009 NA NA 2010 NA NA 2011 NA NA 2012 3.27 71 2013 3.12 37 All Years 3.23 108 Table 2 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa TTeerreessaa FFooxx ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110088)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Maria Teresa Fox Sample Size = 108 Judge Fox A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 58% 15% 10% 6% 7% 5% 3.18 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 59% 16% 7% 3% 2% 13% 3.46 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 63% 9% 6% 1% 4% 18% 3.53 status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 67% 11% 5% 4% 3% 10% 3.52 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 58% 3% 2% 0% 1% 36% 3.84 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 49% 16% 8% 7% 5% 16% 3.16 Question 2 Average Grade 3.45 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 44% 30% 14% 4% 9% 0% 2.96 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 40% 28% 18% 5% 9% 0% 2.86 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 60% 25% 7% 0% 2% 7% 3.51 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 49% 16% 11% 5% 5% 14% 3.14 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 40% 16% 21% 9% 14% 0% 2.60 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 47% 14% 9% 9% 9% 12% 2.94 Question 3 Average Grade 3.00 Overall Average Grade: 3.23 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 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge Maria Teresa Fox Judge Fox How strongly do you recommend that Judge Fox be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 41% Recommend retain 28% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 18% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 11% Total Retain 69% Neither 18% Total Not Retain 13% 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 8 Judge Maria Teresa Fox Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades Overall average grade 3.23 Question 2 average grade 3.45 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.18 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.46 answer questions. 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.53 economic status. 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.52 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.84 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.16 Question 3 average grade 3.00 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 2.96 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.86 basis of the Court's decision. 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.51 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.14 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.60 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2.94 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Fox 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 Judge Maria Teresa Fox Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Fox be retained or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 41% Recommend retain 28% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 18% Judge Fox Total Retain 69% Neither 18% Recommend not retain 2% Total Not Retain 13% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt aanndd AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarriiaa TTeerreessaa FFooxx ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 177)) ## Page 11 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Judge Maria Teresa Fox Sample Size = 117 Judge Fox A B C D Fail DK/NA 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 63% 18% 1% 0% 0% 19% 3.76 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 50% 23% 4% 1% 0% 22% 3.56 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 52% 22% 3% 1% 0% 22% 3.61 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 43% 16% 4% 0% 0% 38% 3.63 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 64% 12% 2% 0% 0% 23% 3.80 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 60% 19% 3% 1% 0% 18% 3.68 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 51% 21% 2% 2% 0% 24% 3.61 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 68% 9% 0% 1% 0% 22% 3.85 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 56% 5% 0% 1% 0% 38% 3.87 Overall Average Grade: 3.71 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 69% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 10% Recommend not retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% Total Retain 88% Neither 10% Total Not Retain 2% 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. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 12 Judge Maria Teresa Fox Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades Overall average of 1 through 9 3.71 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.76 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.56 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.61 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.63 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.80 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.68 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.61 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.85 status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.87 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 69% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 10% Judge Fox Total Retain 88% Recommend not retain 1% Neither 10% Total Not Retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Fox 10 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 13 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 14 Methodology The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for these two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges and justices 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 and justice by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges and justices 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a Court of Appeals judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 12 ## Page 15 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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 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 Court of Appeals 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 column on the far right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. 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 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 Court of Appeals 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 State 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. 13 ## Page 16 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2006 through 2013, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 20.5% for Judge Fox. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2013 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Fox is 17.4%. A table of Judge Fox’s cooperation rate is shown below. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2012 through 2013. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Fox 716 418 190 108 20.5% II District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: One-hundred seventy-one (171) district judges and 27 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the appellate judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions, plus the retention recommendation question (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the nine questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. The overall 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. 14 ## Page 17 The following page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form and the percentage distribution to the retention question in bar-graph form. The last part of the District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section lists the comments district and appellate judges wrote about the judge. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the district judge and appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each appellate judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the appellate judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the appellate judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, 198 questionnaires were mailed (171 district judges and 27 appellate judges) and 117 were returned, though not all appellate judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 15 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 20 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 ## Page 21 ## Page 22 ## Page 23 ## Page 24

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