Richard L. Gabriel

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Supreme Court

  Commission vote: 9 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 74.3% yes

  1,497,141 yes · 517,347 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice Richard L. Gabriel MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 9-0. The judicial performance standards are: integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Justice Gabriel was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court effective September 1, 2015. He graduated from Yale University in 1984 and the University of Pennsylvania School of Law in 1987. He was a City Prosecutor for Lafayette, Colorado, a law firm partner, and a Colorado Court of Appeals judge for seven years. Justice Gabriel stays active in court-related and community activities, including the Our Courts program, the Colorado Judicial Institute, the Chief Justice’s Commission on Professional Development, the Colorado Bar Association Judicial Liaison Section, and the Minoru Yasui Inn of Court. He also speaks to citizen and school groups about the court system. The Commission interviewed Justice Gabriel, read a selection of his legal opinions, observed him in court, reviewed his self-evaluation, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. One survey question asked whether Justice Gabriel met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 98% answered yes, 2% answered no. Of the judges who responded to that question, 97% answered yes, 1% answered no, and 1% had no opinion. A total of 62 attorneys and 67 judges completed the survey.   Justice Gabriel has been on the Supreme Court for about three years, and this is his first retention review as a justice. Attorney survey responses indicate that Justice Gabriel’s performance is strong in the areas of being prepared for oral argument, being courteous, and treating parties equally. The survey responses of attorneys and judges indicate that he issues opinions in a timely manner, writes opinions that are clear, and adequately explains the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Commission reviewed several of Justice Gabriel’s opinions and also found them to be clear, thoughtful, and well-reasoned. Comments from attorneys and judges suggested that he is timely in reaching decisions, engages all parties, is concerned for litigants, and is knowledgeable based on his diverse courtroom background. The Commission believes that Justice Gabriel is a valuable asset to the Supreme Court.
• 2010 retention cycle

  Court of Appeals

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 65.9% yes

  915,124 yes · 473,675 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report 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 Richard L. Gabriel BE RETAINED. Judge Gabriel is fairly new to the Colorado Court of Appeals, having been appointed in 2008. He graduated from Yale University with a Bachelor of Arts degree (cum laude) in American Studies. He received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law in 1987. In 2007 he was named Intellectual Property Lawyer of the Year by Law Week Colorado and a Lawyer of the Year by Lawyers USA. Judge Gabriel is involved in numerous bar association and community service activities. He frequently gives public presentations on the Colorado court system to citizen and school groups, and provides continuing legal education for lawyers. Prior to his appointment to the Court, Judge Gabriel was in private practice as a partner with Holme Roberts & Owen LLP. His practice focused on commercial, intellectual property, probate, and products liability litigation, as well as appellate proceedings. He also served as City Prosecutor for Lafayette, Colorado for four years and undertook pro bono representation in habeas corpus, civil rights, and dependency and neglect matters. Attorneys who responded to survey questions indicate that, compared to the other appellate judges, Judge Gabriel’s performance is somewhat stronger in several areas, including being fair and impartial and issuing opinions in a timely manner. Several attorneys commented that he is courteous, well prepared for and engaged in oral argument, and that he has a good legal mind. The judges surveyed indicate his performance is comparable in most respects to other appellate judges, with several noting that Judge Gabriel is hard-working and thoughtful. The Commission reviewed a number of opinions that Judge Gabriel wrote. His opinions demonstrate intellectual honesty in presenting opposing arguments and a careful attentiveness to the factual and legal issues presented. Though sometimes overly detailed, his written decisions contain a meticulous and thoughtful analysis of those issues and reflect respect toward any differing opinions of his colleagues. Judge Gabriel consistently demonstrates that he is an intelligent, fair, and hard working judge. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 82% recommended to retain, 10% not to retain, and 8% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 89% recommended to retain and 11% not to retain. Of all judges surveyed, 70% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 28% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 96% recommended to retain and 3% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

• 2018 cycle
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Richard L. Gabriel 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Performance Score.12 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .13 Methodology and How to Read Results .13 Individual Questions .15 Performance Score.17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Richard L. Gabriel, 171 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 129 agreed they had worked with Justice Gabriel enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 129 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4.00 3.72 3.74 3.76 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys District and Appellate Judges Table 1 Justice Richard L. Gabriel Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.72 3.74 3.76 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 98% 98% 97% 80% 60% 40% 20% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% Combined Attorneys District & Appellate Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Justice Richard L. Gabriel Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Yes, meets performance 98% 98% 97% standards No, does not meet performance 2% 2% 1% standards No opinion 1% 0% 1% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Justice Richard L. Gabriel Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.84 3.76 Writing 3.64 N/A 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 232 0 81 35% 23% District and Appellate 209 0 90 43% 26% Judges *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Gabriel, 81 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 62 agreed they had worked with Justice Gabriel enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 62 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Justice Gabriel on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 Appellate General Overall Average 3.84 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.68 Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.83 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.91 economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.86 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.98 Being prepared for oral argument 3.89 Justice Gabriel 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 8 ## Page 11 Table 5 Appellate General Justice Richard L. Gabriel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being fair and impartial toward 51 11 3 -- 1 -- 66 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their 54 7 2 -- -- 3 66 arguments and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 54 1 -- -- 1 10 66 economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 59 2 2 1 -- 2 66 Not engaging in ex parte 47 1 -- -- -- 18 66 communications Being prepared for oral argument 57 5 1 -- -- 3 66 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Justice Gabriel on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.64 Writing opinions that are clear 3.73 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.66 the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.64 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.74 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.55 facts Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.67 decided Justice Gabriel 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 10 ## Page 13 Table 6 Appellate Writing Justice Richard L. Gabriel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Writing opinions that are clear 48 12 1 1 -- 1 63 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 47 10 4 1 -- 1 63 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 42 12 3 1 -- 5 63 Making decisions without regard to 47 7 2 -- 1 6 63 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 41 18 1 -- 2 1 63 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 43 6 4 -- 1 9 63 need not be decided 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 11 ## Page 14 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Justice Gabriel meets judicial performance standards? Table 7 Justice Richard L. Gabriel Yes, meets performance 98% standards No, does not meet 2% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 12 ## Page 15 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Gabriel, 90 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 67 agreed they had worked with Justice Gabriel enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 67 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2018 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2018 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 14 responded and completed the survey. The response rate was 52%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 6 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,098 survey invitations were sent and 442 responded and completed the survey. The overall response rate was 40%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 26th, 2018. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on January 9th. A reminder email was sent on January 16th to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked whether or not the judge met performance standards and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 13 ## Page 16 d. Analysis Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.76 Writing opinions that are clear 3.74 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.77 the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.85 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.79 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.67 facts Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.67 decided Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.84 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.9 economic status Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.00 Justice Gabriel 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 15 ## Page 18 Table 8 Appellate Individual Questions Justice Richard L. Gabriel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Writing opinions that are clear 50 15 1 -- -- 1 67 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 52 11 2 -- -- 1 66 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 45 6 1 -- -- 15 67 Making decisions without regard to 51 10 -- 1 -- 5 67 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 47 17 1 1 -- 1 67 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 41 14 1 1 -- 10 67 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 55 7 -- 1 -- 4 67 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 59 3 -- 1 -- 4 67 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 11 -- -- -- -- 4 15 communications 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 16 ## Page 19 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Justice Gabriel meets judicial performance standards? Table 9 Justice Richard L. Gabriel Yes, meets performance 97% standards No, does not meet 1% performance standards No opinion 1% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Richard L. Gabriel 17
• 2010 cycle
  • 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee RRiicchhaarrdd LL.. GGaabbrriieell 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 September 30, 2009 The Honorable Richard L. Gabriel Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Dear Judge Gabriel: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention justices and judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all justices and judges in non-retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey regarding appellate judges among attorneys who have had a case they appealed decided between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009, and for which an opinion was published. The results in this report also include responses to surveys conducted prior to July 1, 2008 and not used in previous reports. These earlier surveys were conducted by mail. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into three main sections: Results. The results section is broken down into three parts. Tables: A table displaying the percentage distribution of grades for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, your average grade for each question and the combined average for the all Court of Appeals judges. The table also shows the averages for all “A” to “F” questions combined. The table also gives the percentage results to the retain/do not retain question. Graphs: Following the table is a set of graphs displaying the average grades for each question. Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. Methodology. The second section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. Questionnaire. And the final section provides a copy of the questions that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Richard L. Gabriel September 30, 2009 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.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, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRiicchhaarrdd LL.. GGaabbrriieell ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Richard L. Gabriel Sample Size = 33 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Gabriel All COA Judges Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 70% 12% 3% 6% 3% 6% 3.48 3.29 2b.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 21% 6% 9% 0% 15% 3.29 3.13 2c.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 55% 15% 0% 12% 3% 15% 3.25 3.04 Court's decision. 2d.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 58% 21% 6% 0% 0% 15% 3.61 3.28 2e.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 58% 15% 12% 0% 0% 15% 3.54 3.38 questions. 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 58% 6% 6% 3% 0% 27% 3.63 3.28 2g.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 61% 12% 6% 9% 6% 6% 3.19 2.97 facts. 2h.Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 48% 9% 6% 3% 3% 30% 3.39 3.26 decided. 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 52% 9% 0% 0% 3% 36% 3.67 3.55 economic status. 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 61% 21% 0% 0% 0% 18% 3.74 3.57 2k.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 39% 3% 0% 0% 0% 58% 3.93 3.80 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 61% 6% 6% 0% 0% 27% 3.75 3.43 Overall Average Grade: 3.54 3.33 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 55 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Richard L. Gabriel Sample Size = 33 Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 5. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gabriel be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 73% 66% Somewhat recommend retention 17% 20% Somewhat recommend not to retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not to retain 7% 8% Total Retain 90% 86% Total Not Retain 10% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 67% 57% Somewhat recommend retention 15% 17% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 13% Somewhat recommend not to retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not to retain 6% 7% Total Retain 82% 74% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 13% Total Not Retain 9% 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 66 ## Page 7 Judge Richard L. Gabriel Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.54 Overall average grade 3.33 3.48 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.29 3.29 2b. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.13 2c. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.25 decision. 3.04 3.61 2d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.28 2e. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.54 questions. 3.38 3.63 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.28 3.19 2g. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.97 3.39 2h. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.26 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.67 status. 3.55 3.74 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.57 3.93 2k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.80 3.75 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.43 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 77 ## Page 8 Judge Richard L. Gabriel Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q5. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gabriel be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 73% Strongly retain 66% 17% Somewhat retain 20% Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 3% Somewhat not retain Total Retain 90% 86% 6% Total Not Retain 10% 14% 7% Strongly not retain 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly retain 57% 15% Somewhat retain 17% Judge 9% Undecided or Don't Know Gabriel All COA Judges 13% Total Retain 82% 74% Undecided or DK 9% 13% 3% Total Not Retain 9% 12% Somewhat not retain 5% 6% Strongly not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 88 ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: For the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received data files from the Colorado Judicial Department containing the names of attorneys who had appeals decided with a published opinion by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. Each attorney in the sample was then assigned to evaluate up to a maximum of seven judges and justices who had written opinions, concurrences or dissents in the cases he or she had appealed. If there were fewer than seven Supreme Court justices for an attorney to potentially evaluate, and he or she had cases decided by the Court of Appeals during the time period, the attorney was asked to evaluate the appropriate Court of Appeals judges. However, the combined total number of justices and judges any one attorney was asked to evaluate did not exceed seven. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted online. All attorneys who were listed in the data files were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of responses, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years by mail that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey. The table below shows the count of completed survey evaluations by Supreme Court and Court of Appeals by when the data was collected. 2009 Online Data Collected Data Collected Survey 2006 - 2008 2005 - 2006 Total Supreme Court 80 83 55 218 Court of Appeals 1,074 302 27 1,403 Total 1,154 385 82 1,621 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1100 ## Page 11 Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the judge or justice’s performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (see question list at the end of this report). These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice be retained or not retained. Comments: While the numerical (closed-ended) questions were the same from 2005 through 2009, the comment questions were different in 2009. In the 2009 survey the two comment questions asked for the judge’s strengths and the judge’s weaknesses. Prior to 2009 the comments questions asked for “Comments about (Judge) relating to any of your response to the previous (closed ended) questions?” The second comment question was asked after the retain/do not retain question and asked: “And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining (Judge)?” Positive responses to these questions are included under Judge’s Strengths in the comments section and negative responses are included under Judge’s Weaknesses. These comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations (Supreme Court plus Court of Appeals) divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Judge Gabriel is shown below. No Undeliv- Completed Response Sent Response erable Evaluations Rate Judge Gabriel 237 204 0 33 13.9% All Court of Appeals Judges 6434 4889 125 1403 22.2% All Appellate Judges 6985 5191 155 1621 23.7% (SC and COA) The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 1,678 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 3.48 judges or justices each—a total of 5,834 potential survey evaluations—257 Supreme Court and 5,577 Court of Appeals. Just over twenty- six percent (26.5%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more appellate judges or justices. Fifty-four out of 165 attorneys who were asked to evaluate one or more Supreme Court justices did so (32.7%). Similarly, 445 attorneys who were 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1111 ## Page 12 asked to evaluate one or more Court of Appeals judges completed the evaluation of at least one judge (29.4%). The average number of judges or justices evaluated per attorney was 2.59 for a total of 1,154 (19.8%) completed evaluations—80 Supreme Court and 1,074 Court of Appeals. Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the All Appellate Judges response rate in the table above, which include evaluations from the prior mail surveys. Projectability: Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of- error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. Survey Results: The report shows the survey results both graphically and in tables. Tables: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades and the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for Judge Gabriel as compared to the average grade for all judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1122 ## Page 13 excluding Judge Gabriel. For comparison purposes, the next two pages show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all Court of Appeals judge. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size is shown at the beginning of the section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all Court of Appeals judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the question regarding retention is also graphed. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1133 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 1403 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 57% 18% 8% 5% 4% 8% 3.29 2b.Writing opinions that are clear. 45% 24% 11% 5% 3% 12% 3.13 2c.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 44% 23% 10% 7% 4% 11% 3.04 Courts decision. 2d.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 49% 26% 11% 3% 2% 9% 3.28 2e.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 50% 19% 6% 3% 3% 21% 3.38 questions. 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 15% 7% 3% 4% 25% 3.28 2g.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 51% 19% 10% 9% 8% 4% 2.97 2h.Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 49% 18% 9% 4% 4% 16% 3.26 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 55% 9% 4% 2% 3% 28% 3.55 economic status. 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 56% 14% 5% 1% 1% 22% 3.57 2k.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 49% 4% 2% 0% 1% 44% 3.80 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 48% 15% 6% 2% 2% 28% 3.43 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1144 ## Page 15 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 1403 Average Grade 5. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 66% Somewhat recommend retention 20% Somewhat recommend not to retain 6% Strongly recommend not to retain 8% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retention 57% Somewhat recommend retention 17% Undecided or Don't Know 13% Somewhat recommend not to retain 5% Strongly recommend not to retain 7% Total Retain 74% Undecided/Don't Know 13% Total Not Retain 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 1155 ## Page 16 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 17 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 the [Judge/Justice] 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/NS for Don’t Know/Not Sure. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. A B C D F DK/NS b. Writing opinions that are clear. A B C D F DK/NS c. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court’s decision. A B C D F DK/NS d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. A B C D F DK/NS e. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. A B C D F DK/NS f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. A B C D F DK/NS g. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. A B C D F DK/NS h. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. A B C D F DK/NS i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. A B C D F DK/NS j. Being courteous toward attorneys. A B C D F DK/NS k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. A B C D F DK/NS l. Being prepared for oral argument. A B C D F DK/NS ## Page 18 3. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 4. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 5. 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 retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1
  • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee RRiicchhaarrdd LL.. GGaabbrriieell 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report Court of Appeals ## Page 2 March 25, 2010 The Honorable Richard L. Gabriel Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Dear Judge Gabriel: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases heard before the Court of Appeals—COA staff attorneys were also surveyed—and a second survey of district judges regarding COA judges who are standing for retention in November, 2010. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of district judges in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these judges made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district judge questionnaire is at the back of this report. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Judge Richard L. Gabriel March 25, 2010 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.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, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Richard L. Gabriel an overall average grade11 of 3.44, and District Judges assigned Judge Gabriel an overall average grade of 3.59 resulting in a combined grade of 3.52. The average combined grade for all Court of Appeals judges standing for retention was 3.49 . The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the district judge survey, divided by two. Judge Gabriel Average Grades Combined Attorney District Judge Overall Grade 3.52 3.44 3.59 Sample Size - 50 133 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in from 2005 through 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Gabriel’s average grades from attorneys for each of these years. Judge Gabriel Average Attorney Grades by Year2 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 0 0 0 3.29 3.54 Sample Size 0 0 0 19 31 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and district judge surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 Court of Appeals judges who were appointed between 2005 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 1 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRiicchhaarrdd LL.. GGaabbrriieell ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 5500)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Richard L. Gabriel Sample Size = 50 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Gabriel All COA Judges Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 68% 16% 2% 6% 4% 4% 3.44 3.31 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 62% 12% 10% 2% 2% 12% 3.48 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 54% 6% 4% 2% 4% 30% 3.49 3.57 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 64% 18% 0% 2% 2% 14% 3.63 3.58 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 44% 4% 0% 0% 2% 50% 3.76 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 64% 4% 6% 0% 2% 24% 3.68 3.45 Question 2 Average Grade 3.58 3.52 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 49% 24% 7% 7% 2% 11% 3.25 3.18 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 51% 22% 0% 11% 4% 11% 3.18 3.10 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 58% 24% 4% 0% 2% 11% 3.53 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 56% 9% 7% 4% 2% 22% 3.43 3.31 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 58% 13% 7% 11% 7% 4% 3.09 2.98 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 49% 11% 9% 2% 4% 24% 3.29 3.24 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.30 3.19 Overall Average Grade: 3.44 3.35 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 33 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Richard L. Gabriel Sample Size = 50 Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gabriel be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 15% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 7% Total Retain 89% 86% Total Not Retain 11% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% 60% Somewhat recommend retain 14% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 12% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 82% 76% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 12% Total Not Retain 10% 12% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 44 ## Page 8 Judge Richard L. Gabriel Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.44 Overall average grade 3.35 3.58 Question 2 average grade 3.52 3.44 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.31 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.48 answer questions. 3.44 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.49 economic status. 3.57 3.63 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.58 3.76 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.79 3.68 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.45 3.30 Question 3 average grade 3.19 3.25 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.18 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.18 basis of the Court's decision. 3.10 3.53 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.30 3.43 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.31 3.09 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.98 3.29 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Richard L. Gabriel Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gabriel be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain 68% 15% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 89% 86% 7% Total Not Retain 11% 14% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 68% Strongly recommend retain 60% 14% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Judge 8% Undecided or Don't Know Gabriel All COA Judges 12% Total Retain 82% 76% Undecided or DK 8% 12% 4% Total Not Retain 10% 12% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Gabriel All COA Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRiicchhaarrdd LL.. GGaabbrriieell ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113)) ## Page 11 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average All COA Judge Richard L. Gabriel Retention Sample Size = 133 Judges Excluding Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Gabriel Gabriel 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 47% 15% 3% 1% 2% 33% 3.56 3.53 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 40% 23% 3% 2% 2% 31% 3.42 3.47 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 42% 19% 5% 0% 2% 33% 3.48 3.52 the Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 38% 16% 3% 0% 2% 41% 3.51 3.57 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 45% 12% 3% 1% 1% 38% 3.62 3.68 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 40% 20% 2% 1% 2% 35% 3.49 3.54 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 38% 20% 3% 1% 1% 38% 3.50 3.53 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 56% 8% 1% 0% 1% 35% 3.81 3.82 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 42% 3% 1% 0% 0% 55% 3.90 3.88 Overall Average Grade: 3.59 3.62 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 181 ## Page 12 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Richard L. Gabriel All COA Sample Size = 133 Retention Judges Excluding Judge Gabriel Judge Gabriel 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 79% 80% Somewhat recommend retain 17% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 1% Total Retain 96% 98% Total Not Retain 3% 2% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 57% 57% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 13% Undecided or Don't Know 28% 28% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 1% Total Retain 70% 70% Undecided/Don't Know 28% 28% Total Not Retain 3% 2% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 192 ## Page 13 Judge Richard L. Gabriel Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.59 Overall average of 1 through 9 3.62 3.56 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.53 3.42 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.47 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.48 Court's decision. 3.52 3.51 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.57 3.62 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.68 3.49 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.54 3.50 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.53 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.81 economic status. 3.82 3.90 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.88 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Gabriel All COA Retention Judges Excluding Judge Gabriel 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1130 ## Page 14 Judge Richard L. Gabriel Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Excluding Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain 80% 17% Somewhat recommend retain 18% All COA Judges 2% Judge Except Judge Somewhat recommend not retain Gabriel Gabriel 1% Total Retain 96% 98% Total Not Retain 3% 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 57% 13% Somewhat recommend retain 13% All COA Judges 28% Judge Except Judge Undecided or Don't Know 28% Gabriel Gabriel Total Retain 70% 70% 2% Undecided or DK 28% 28% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 3% 2% 1% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Gabriel All COA Retention Judges Excluding Judge Gabriel 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1141 ## Page 15 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys1: The survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and a similar list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. These lists 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. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys‟ offices. All attorneys from the Supreme Court opinions list and the Court of Appeals opinions list were assigned to evaluate justices or judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the justice. 4. If at this point there were still several justices or judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the justice or judge with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still several justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, he or she was either randomly assigned to one of them, or assigned to the justice or judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not 1 A third survey was attempted of Supreme Court and COA non-attorney employees. Talmey-Drake Research received lists of 21 Supreme Court employees and 15 Court of Appeals employees. No justice or judge had more than one completed survey-evaluation returned, and therefore the results are not reported. 13 ## Page 17 complete the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to seven Supreme Court justices or COA judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 5 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to seven justices or judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. The list of seven justices or judges could include both justices and judges. If an attorney had more than seven possible justices or judges he or she could potentially evaluate, Supreme Court justices were assigned to that attorney first. 4. If there were more than seven justices or judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the justices or judges with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still more than seven justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, justices or judges were either randomly assigned to available list slots or were assigned to the justices or judges with the smallest sample sizes. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney would be asked to evaluate all seven justices if the case was heard by the Supreme Court, and the full three- judge panel if the case was heard by the Court of Appeals—not just the justices or judges who had written the opinion, concurrences or dissents. Because some of the survey questions refer specifically to the justice‟s or judge‟s legal writing, a question was added to the questionnaire asking “Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about Justice/Judge„s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them?” If the respondent answered “No” or “Don‟t Know” to this question he or she was not asked about the justice‟s or judge‟s writings. A copy of the list of the Attorney Regarding Appellate Judges questions is reprinted in the last section of this report. In addition to attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, COA staff attorneys were also surveyed in 2010. 14 ## Page 18 The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge‟s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores 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. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s strengths and what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or 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 justice or judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 15 ## Page 19 Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don‟t know” 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 COA judges—including COA judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all COA 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/undecided” 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 Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge‟s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (Supreme Court plus Court of Appeals) divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual justice or judge is computed as the number of completed survey- evaluations for that justice or judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge or justice. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Judge Gabriel is shown below. 16 ## Page 20 Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable Evaluations Rate Judge Gabriel 376 326 50 13.3% All Court of Appeals 2063 1737 18 308 15.1% Judges All Appellate Judges 5471 4430 43 997 18.4% (SC and COA) The cooperation rate in the table above is based on the percent of survey-evaluations completed, and not the percent of attorneys who responded with at least one completed evaluation. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 3,712 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.6 justices or judges each—a total of 17,075 potential attorney evaluations. One thousand three hundred and eighty (1,380) attorneys responded (37.2%) with one or more survey evaluations. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5. II District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: All district judges and appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire in January 2010 asking them to evaluate the four Supreme Court justices and five Court of Appeals judges standing for retention in 2010. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions plus the recommend retention question (see the next report section for the questionnaire). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were asked to write a comment about each justice and judge. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or 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 justice or 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. 17 ## Page 21 d. Analysis: The District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don‟t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge‟s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for the other four retention COA judges‟ combined results, and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for the five COA retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. 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. The first column of percentages is for the report-justice and the second column displays the percentages for the other four Court of Appeals retention judges combined. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don‟t know/undecided” 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 Appellate Judges lists the comments district and appellate justices and judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: One hundred and eighty-eight (188) questionnaires were mailed (7 Supreme Court, 22 Court of Appeals and 159 district judges) and 137 were returned, though not all nine justices and judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges nor the District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges is projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 19 ## Page 23 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 1259 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 57% 18% 9% 5% 4% 8% 3.31 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 51% 17% 5% 2% 2% 22% 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 56% 9% 4% 2% 2% 28% 3.57 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 57% 13% 4% 1% 1% 23% 3.58 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 49% 4% 2% 0% 1% 44% 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 47% 14% 6% 2% 2% 29% 3.45 Question 2 Average Grade 3.52 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 47% 25% 10% 5% 3% 9% 3.18 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 24% 11% 7% 4% 9% 3.10 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 27% 11% 3% 2% 8% 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 15% 7% 3% 4% 24% 3.31 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 50% 19% 11% 9% 8% 3% 2.98 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 49% 19% 9% 4% 4% 16% 3.24 Question 3 Average Grade 3.19 Overall Average Grade: 3.35 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 1259 Average Grade 6. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 60% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 12% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 76% Undecided/Don't Know 12% Total Not Retain 12% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All 2010 COA Retention Judges Sample Size = 137 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 46% 15% 6% 1% 1% 31% 3.53 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 42% 21% 4% 2% 1% 31% 3.46 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 43% 19% 5% 0% 1% 32% 3.51 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 39% 16% 4% 0% 1% 41% 3.55 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 48% 12% 3% 0% 0% 36% 3.67 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 42% 19% 3% 1% 1% 33% 3.53 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 39% 18% 3% 1% 0% 38% 3.53 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 7% 1% 0% 0% 33% 3.82 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 42% 4% 1% 0% 0% 53% 3.89 Overall Average Grade: 3.61 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All 2010 COA Retention Judges Sample Size = 137 Average Grade 10. Recommend retain/not retain. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 80% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% Total Retain 98% Total Not Retain 2% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 57% Somewhat recommend retain 13% Undecided or Don't Know 28% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% Total Retain 70% Undecided/Don't Know 28% Total Not Retain 2% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 28 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 justice, please check DK/NS for Don't Know/Not Sure. 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 Justice Roy Bean 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 (Last Name)’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 29 5. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. 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 retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1 ## Page 30 Please answer the enclosed questions about each of the four Supreme Court justices and the five Court of Appeals judges who are eligible to stand for retention in November 2010. For questions 1 through 9 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” Thank you. Page 12 ## Page 31 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. H. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge No Nancy J. Lichtenstein in the space below. If you would like A B C D F Grade to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 a sheet with additional comments. Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ I. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge David J. Richman in the space below. If you would like to 2. Writing opinions that are clear. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you. Page 2 Page 11 ## Page 32 F. Please write comments you would like to make about 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Judge John Daniel Dailey in the space below. If you Court’s decision. would like to make more comments than space allows, feel No free to attach a sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. G. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Richard L. Gabriel in the space below. If you No A B C D F Grade would like to make more comments than space allows, feel Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 free to attach a sheet with additional comments. _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Page 10 Page 3 ## Page 33 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. D. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Nancy E. Rice in the space below. If you would like to make No more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet A B C D F Grade with additional comments. Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ E. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and Sean Connelly in the space below. If you would like to make facts. more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet No with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 4 Page 9 ## Page 34 S5 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be Alex J. Martinez in the space below. If you would like to make decided. more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet No with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ C. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Mary J. Mullarkey in the space below. If you would like to 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a economic status. sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sean Connelly . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Page 8 ## Page 35 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 10. [Continued] No Judge Judge Judge 6 A B C D F Grade Connelly Dailey Gabriel Justice Michael L. Bender . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 Justice Alex J. Martinez . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Justice Mary J. Mullarkey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation . 3 3 3 Justice Nancy E. Rice . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Judge Sean Connelly. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 Judge John Daniel Dailey . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Judge Judge Richard L. Gabriel . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Lichtenstein Richman Judge Nancy J. Lichtenstein . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 Judge David J. Richman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Justice Justice A. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Bender Martinez Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 Michael L. Bender in the space below. If you would like to Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. Undecided or don’t know enough _ to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 _ _ _ Justice Justice _ Mullarkey Rice Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough _ to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Page 6 Page 7

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

• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026