James H. Garrecht

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 85.4% yes

  9,143 yes · 1,566 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report Recommendation: The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0) voted that Judge James H. Garrecht MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Background: Judge Garrecht is a graduate of Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, and obtained his Juris Doctorate from William Mitchell Law School in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1979. Judge Garrecht was appointed to the Routt County Court in 1987. Before his appointment, he served as a Deputy District Attorney in the 15th Judicial District in 1979, a Deputy District Attorney for the 14th Judicial District from 1980 to 1982, and was in private practice in Steamboat Springs from 1982 – 1987. In private practice, he focused on criminal and domestic relations law. Judge Garrecht presides over all County Court cases filed in Routt County, including civil, small claims, misdemeanor, felony, traffic offenses and traffic infraction cases. He regularly conducts bench and jury trials. Evaluation Methodology: Judge Garrecht was evaluated as to Integrity, Legal Knowledge, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Administrative Performance (Management) and Service to the Legal Profession. The Commission reviewed written evaluations from attorneys and non-attorneys, including verbatim comments attached to evaluation questionnaires, as well as other written communications critiquing him. The Commission also considered Judge Garrecht’s self-evaluation and written orders and opinions that he selected and submitted for review. Commission members personally observed Judge Garrecht in his courtroom, and Judge Garrecht sat for an interview before the Commission. Of the attorneys surveyed, 85% found Judge Garrecht to meet performance standards, 5% found that he does not meet those standards, and 10% expressed no opinion. Of non-attorneys surveyed, 92% found he meets performance standards, 4% found that he does not, and 4% expressed no opinion. Performance: There were no significant areas of deficiency noted from the evaluation of Judge Garrecht that required this Commission’s attention. Judge Garrecht’s performance exceeds the standards of performance by which county judges are evaluated. Judge Garrecht scores very highly in matters of integrity, communication, judicial temperament, administrative skills and community service. His “people skills” and management of his courtroom are exemplary. He received many favorable comments regarding his courtroom demeanor. As to areas of improvement, which were deemed to be minor in nature, the Commission addressed with Judge Garrecht the need to speak more slowly when providing repetitive instructions to defendants in criminal cases. Judge Garrecht self-identifies as a weakness the need to improve his technology skills – although this does not cause the Commission concern or to doubt the accuracy of its findings.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 85.5% yes

  7,696 yes · 1,307 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us Retention Recommendation:  The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge James H. Garrecht BE RETAINED. Background:  Judge James H. Garrecht was appointed to the Routt County Court in 1987.  Before his appointment, Judge Garrecht was a Deputy District Attorney in the 15th Judicial District in 1979, a Deputy District Attorney in the 14th Judicial District from 1980 to 1982 and in private practice from 1982-1987 with focus on Domestic and Criminal cases.  Judge Garrecht graduated in 1972 from Fort Lewis College in Durango, CO and obtained his Juris Doctorate from William Mitchell Law School in Minnesota in 1979.  Judge Garrecht presides over all County Court cases filed in Routt County, which include Civil, Small Claims, Misdemeanor, Felony, Traffic Offense, and Traffic Infraction case types.  He conducts bench and jury trials as needed.   Evaluation Methods:  The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Garrecht from attorneys and non-attorneys, including verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires, as well as written correspondence regarding Judge Garrecht.  The Commission also considered a self-evaluation, orders and opinions written by Judge Garrecht.  Finally, members of the Commission personally observed Judge Garrecht in his courtroom and conducted a face to face interview of him.  Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 92% recommended retention, 3% not to retain, and 6% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 79% recommended retention, 13% not to retain, and 9% made no recommendation regarding retention.  (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.)  All of the groups surveyed had a sufficient response rate. Performance:  Judge Garrecht handles a high volume of cases in Routt County Court and demonstrates an ability to keep cases moving forward in a timely manner.  The surveys indicate that Judge Garrecht has the ability to relate to both Attorneys and Non-Attorneys in the courtroom in a cordial and friendly manner.  He is consistently described by those who appear in his courtroom as pleasant, cordial, friendly, respectful and patient.  Overall the survey results show that he is fair and efficient and that his goal is to achieve an equitable result while applying the law.  Judge Garrecht is consistent in his sentences and rulings, reflecting solid knowledge of the law and its fair application.  By way of community service, Judge Garrecht currently serves as Treasurer of the Northwest Colorado Bar Association.
• 2010 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards(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 Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge James H. Garrecht BE RETAINED. Background: Judge James H. Garrecht was appointed to the Routt County Court in 1987. Before his appointment, Judge Garrecht was a Deputy District Attorney in the Fifteenth Judicial District in 1979, a Deputy District Attorney in the Fourteenth Judicial District from 1980 to 1982 and in private practice from 1982 to 1987 with focus on domestic and criminal cases. Judge Garrecht graduated in 1972 from Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado and obtained his Juris Doctorate from William Mitchell Law School located in Minnesota in 1979. Judge Garrecht currently hears all county court cases, which includes civil, traffic infractions, traffic offenses, misdemeanors, felony advisements and preliminary hearings. Evaluation: The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Garrecht from attorneys and non-attorneys, including verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also considered a self-evaluation, orders and opinions written by Judge Garrecht. Finally, members of the Commission personally observed Judge Garrecht in his courtroom and conducted a face-to-face interview. Judge Garrecht handles a high volume of cases in county court and demonstrates an ability to keep cases moving forward in a timely manner. The surveys indicate that Judge Garrecht has the ability to relate to both attorneys and non-attorneys in the courtroom in a cordial and friendly manner. Overall the survey results show he is fair and efficient. Judge Garrecht is consistent in his sentences and rulings, reflecting a fair application of the law. The Commission recommends based on courtroom observation that the court should return to a more formal standard with a focus on decorum. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 87% recommended to retain, 8% not to retain, and 5% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 92% recommended to retain and 8% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 78% recommended to retain, 8% not to retain, and 13% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 90% recommended to retain and 9% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2006 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 82.8% yes

  5,799 yes · 1,208 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2006 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge James H. Garrecht BE RETAINED. Judge Garrecht graduated with a B.A. in political science and history (double major) from Ft. Lewis College in Durango, Colorado. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. He graduated from the National Judicial College General Jurisdiction Course in 1991. Judge Garrecht began his legal career as a Deputy District Attorney in the Fifteenth Judicial District and came to the District Attorney’s Office in Steamboat Springs as a Deputy District Attorney in March 1980. Judge Garrecht was in private practice for several years before being appointed as Routt County Judge in 1987. He also served as the District Court Magistrate from 1985 to 2000. Judge Garrecht hears preliminary matters in felony cases and misdemeanor, traffic, small claims and county court civil cases. He serves as Acting District Court Judge for the Fourteenth Judicial District in domestic relations cases and emergency district court matters. The Commission reviewed written evaluations and survey material of Judge Garrecht from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by the judge and conducted a personal interview with Judge Garrecht. Judge Garrecht speaks to students and citizen groups about the perspective of the judiciary on various issues. He has been the Secretary-Treasurer and Past-President of the Northwest Colorado Bar Association for many years. He also serves as a mentor judge and is on the Domestic Violence Task Force. He is a former board member of the Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association and the Routt County Alcohol Council. He has a great respect for the rule of law, and values the integrity of himself and his office. Judge Garrecht is even-handed and unbiased in his courtroom. He treats litigants, attorneys, witnesses and jurors with respect and courtesy, and decides factual issues impartially and on a timely basis. Outside of the courtroom Judge Garrecht enjoys spending time with his family and is an avid Denver Broncos fan. Judge Garrecht received high ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in virtually every category of the survey, particularly in the areas of being courteous; treating all parties equally; being fair and impartial toward both sides; communicating clearly, thoroughly and in a well-reasoned manner; explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly; maintaining a proper judicial temperament; and making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, a remarkable 96% recommended that Judge Garrecht be retained in office and that 3% recommended that Judge Garrecht not be retained. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 93% recommended retention, 6% recommended non-retention. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained.
• 2002 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge James H. Garrecht BE RETAINED. Judge Garrecht graduated with a B.A. in political science and history (double major) from Ft. Lewis College in Durango, Colorado. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. He graduated from the National Judicial College General Jurisdiction Course in 1991. Judge Garrecht began his legal career as a Deputy District Attorney in the Fifteenth Judicial District and came to the District Attorney’s Office in Steamboat Springs as a Deputy District Attorney in March 1980. Judge Garrecht was in private practice for several years before being appointed as Routt County Judge in 1987. He also served as the District Court Magistrate from 1985 to 2000. Judge Garrecht hears preliminary matters in felony cases and misdemeanor, traffic, small claims and county court civil cases. He serves as Acting District Court Judge for the Fourteenth Judicial District in domestic relations cases and emergency district court matters. The Commission reviewed written evaluations and survey material of Judge Garrecht from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by the judge and conducted a personal interview with Judge Garrecht. Judge Garrecht speaks to students and citizen groups about the perspective of the judiciary on various issues. He has been the Secretary-Treasurer and Past-President of the Northwest Colorado Bar Association for many years. He also serves as a mentor judge and is on the Domestic Violence Task Force. He is a former board member of the Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association and the Routt County Alcohol Council. He has a great respect for the rule of law, and values the integrity of himself and his office. Judge Garrecht is even-handed and unbiased in his courtroom. He treats litigants, attorneys, witnesses and jurors with respect and courtesy, and decides factual issues impartially and on a timely basis. Outside of the courtroom Judge Garrecht enjoys spending time with his family and is an avid Denver Broncos fan. Judge Garrecht received high ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in virtually every category of the survey, particularly in the areas of being courteous; treating all parties equally; being fair and impartial toward both sides; communicating clearly, thoroughly and in a well-reasoned manner; explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly; maintaining a proper judicial temperament; and making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, a remarkable 100% recommended that Judge Garrecht be retained in office. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 77% recommended retention, 7% recommended non-retention and 16% had no opinion. The Commission voted eight to one to recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained.
• 1998 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards(Do Not Retain)
  Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge James H. Garrecht BE RETAINED. Judge James H. Garrecht was appointed Judge to the Routt County Court in 1987. Judge Garrecht currently hears all County Court cases, which includes civil, traffic infractions, traffic offenses, misdemeanors, felony advisements and preliminary hearings. Courthouse personnel, law enforcement, juror and attorney questionnaires received by the Commission rate Judge Garrecht as exceptional. Judge Garrecht received very high marks for compassion, integrity, judicial demeanor and control of the courtroom. Judge Garrecht is highly energetic, prepared, knowledgeable, and extremely patient, especially with parties who are not represented by lawyers. Judge Garrecht is Secretary of the Northwest Colorado Bar Association and enjoys family activities, skiing, golfing, rafting, photography, and mountain biking. Judge Garrecht received a B.A. from Fort Lewis College in 1972, a J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law in 1979, and graduated from the general jurisdiction course at the National Judicial College in 1991. Judge Garrecht served as a Deputy District Attorney from 1979 to 1983, was in private practice from 1983 until his appointment to the bench. He also has served as the District Court Magistrate from 1984 to present. Those persons who responded to the questionnaires made the following recommendations concerning retention for Judge Garrecht: Attorneys Retain: 100.0%, Jurors Retain: 96.0% - Do Not Retain 4%, Litigants Retain: 66.7% - Do Not Retain 33.3%, Court/Probation Retain: 100.0%, Crime Victims Retain: 100.0% and Law Enforcement Officers Retain: 95.8% – Do Not Retain 4.2%. No response was received from Social Service Case Workers.
• 1994 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain Judge James H. Garrecht was appointed judge to the Routt County Court in 1987. Judge Garrecht currently hears all county court cases, which include civil, traffic infractions, traffic offenses, misdemeanors, felony advisements and preliminary hearings. Courthouse personnel, law enforcement, juror and attorney questionnaires received by the commission rate Judge Garrecht as exceptional. Judge Garrecht received very high marks for compassion, integrity, judicial demeanor and control of the courtroom.  Judge Garrecht is highly energetic, prepared, knowledgeable and extremely patient, especially with parties who are not represented by lawyers. Judge Garrecht is the Secretary of the Northwest Colorado Bar Association and enjoys family activities, skiing, golfing, rafting, photography and mountain biking. Judge Garrecht received a B.A. from Fort Lewis College in 1972, a J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law in 1979, and graduated from the general jurisdiction course at the National Judicial College in 1991. Judge Garrecht served as a deputy district attorney from 1979 to 1983, was in private practice from 1983 until his appointment to the bench. He also has served as the District Court Magistrate from 1984 to present. The 14th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Garrecht BE RETAINED.
• 1990 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Routt · Routt

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Garrecht was admitted to the Colorado Bar in 1979. He was a deputy district attorney in southeastern Colorado until 1981 when he became a deputy district attorney in Routt County. He was in private practice from 1983 until his appointment as the judge for Routt County in 1986. Judge Garrecht also serves as a domestic relations referee for Routt and Moffat counties. Garrecht presides over traffic and misdemeanor criminal cases, including drunken driving cases, preliminary hearings in felony matters, small claims cases and civil cases, involving claims up to $5,000. Most litigants, attorneys and law enforcement people found Garrecht to be a competent and fair judge.

Surveys & reports

• 2018 cycle
  • 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable James H. Garrecht 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge James H. Garrecht, 90 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 71 agreed they had worked with Judge Garrecht enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 71 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) 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 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.92 4 3.71 3.67 3.55 3.41 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge James H. Garrecht Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.55 3.41 3.71 3.92 3.67 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 87% 87% 87% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge James H. Garrecht Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 87% 87% 87% 100% 83% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge James H. Garrecht Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.53 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.28 3.63 4.00 3.56 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.38 3.82 3.83 3.81 Diligence 3.27 3.77 4.00 3.72 Demeanor 3.59 3.70 3.83 3.68 Fairness N/A 3.64 3.94 3.57 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 123 0 42 34% 10% Total Non- 901 92 48 5% 31% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 24 0 6 25% 0% Other Non- 877 92 42 5% 36% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Garrecht, 42 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 38 agreed they had worked with Judge Garrecht enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 38 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 60%. b. Methodology The 2016 -2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge James H. Garrecht be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge James H. Garrecht Total Retain 87% Neither 11% Total Not Retain 3% Figure 3 100% 80% 58% 60% 54% 40% 29% 22% 20% 11% 9% 7% 9% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Garrecht All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.39 Case Management Overall Average 3.53 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.68 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.50 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.27 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.59 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 6 Case Management Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Garrecht Number of Responses: 38 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 55% 32% 3% -- -- 11% 3.59 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 53% 26% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3.27 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 53% 29% 8% -- -- 11% 3.50 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 71% 26% 3% -- -- -- 3.68 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.53 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.13 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.28 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.05 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.34 3.19 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.67 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.05 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.16 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 38 Garrecht Judges Being able to identify and analyze 50% 24% 18% 8% -- -- 3.16 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 42% 24% 26% 5% -- 3% 3.05 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 68% 25% 4% -- -- 4% 3.67 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 58% 24% 13% 5% -- -- 3.34 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 45% 24% 21% 5% 3% 3% 3.05 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.28 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.38 Communications Overall Average 3.38 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 3.18 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 8 Communications All Judge James H. Garrecht Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Garrecht Number of Responses: 38 Judges Making sure all participants 71% 18% 8% 3% -- -- 3.58 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 50% 26% 16% 8% -- -- 3.18 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.28 Demeanor Overall Average 3.59 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.46 3.32 Treating participants with respect 3.74 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.55 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 9 Demeanor All Judge James H. Garrecht Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Garrecht Number of Responses: 38 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 68% 21% 8% 3% -- -- 3.55 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 84% 8% 5% 3% -- -- 3.74 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 66% 18% 5% 8% -- 3% 3.46 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.59 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.17 Diligence Overall Average 3.27 3.26 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 3.11 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 3.11 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 10 Diligence Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 38 Garrecht Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 47% 24% 21% 8% -- -- 3.11 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 45% 24% 18% 8% -- 5% 3.11 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 55% 24% 11% -- -- 11% 3.50 3.26 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.27 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Garrecht in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 52% 44% 37% 40% 27% 15% 20% 11% 8% 4% 2% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Garrecht All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge James H. Garrecht, 48 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 33 agreed they had worked with Judge Garrecht enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 33 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the tab le refer to the number of questions ask ed in each category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 16 ## Page 19 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge James H. Garrecht Total Retain 87% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 80% 80% 64% 60% 40% 17% 20% 13% 7% 7% 9% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Garrecht All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.70 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.35 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.58 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.64 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.82 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.79 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 12 Demeanor Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 33 Garrecht Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 82% 15% 3% -- -- -- 3.79 3.47 Treating participants with respect 82% 18% -- -- -- -- 3.82 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 79% 9% 9% 3% -- -- 3.64 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 79% 6% 12% -- 3% -- 3.58 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.70 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.64 3.47 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.76 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.64 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.45 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 13 Fairness Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Garrecht Number of Responses: 33 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 82% 12% -- -- 6% -- 3.64 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 73% 15% -- 9% 3% -- 3.45 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 61% 9% 3% -- 3% 24% 3.64 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 76% 9% -- -- 3% 12% 3.76 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.64 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.60 Communications Overall Average 3.82 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.94 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.82 3.54 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 14 Communications Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 33 Garrecht Judges Making sure all participants 82% 9% 6% 3% -- -- 3.70 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 85% 12% 3% -- -- -- 3.82 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 94% 6% -- -- -- -- 3.94 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.82 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.77 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.45 wasted time 3.63 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.87 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.76 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.80 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 15 Diligence Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 33 Garrecht Judges Beginning court on time 88% 9% -- 3% -- -- 3.82 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 79% 6% 6% -- -- 9% 3.80 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 88% 6% -- 6% -- -- 3.76 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 82% 6% 3% -- -- 9% 3.87 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 72% 9% 13% -- -- 6% 3.63 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.77 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.36 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.63 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.66 3.41 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.66 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Garrecht Table 16 Application of Law Judge James H. Garrecht All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Garrecht Number of Responses: 32 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 74% 13% 6% -- 3% 3% 3.60 3.37 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 72% 13% 3% -- 3% 9% 3.66 3.41 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 71% 16% 3% 3% -- 6% 3.66 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.63 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Garrecht is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Garrecht is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 81% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 3% 7% 3% 7% 9% 6% 3% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Garrecht All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Garrecht are. If you feel Judge Garrecht generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 81% 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 6% 6% 10% 8% 8% 6% 3% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Garrecht All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 25
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable James H. Garrecht 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County 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 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge James H. Garrecht, 96 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 70 agreed they had worked with Judge Garrecht enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 70 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.98 4 3.78 3.66 3.69 3.39 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge James H. Garrecht Overall Scores Non- Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Attorneys Overall Grade 3.66 3.39 3.78 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 90% 92% 91% 85% 80% 60% 40% 20% 10% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% 6% 3% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge James H. Garrecht Overall Retention Scores Non- Attorneys Total Combined Attorneys Non- Attorneys Yes, meets performance 90% 85% 92% standards No, does not meet performance 4% 5% 4% standards No opinion 6% 10% 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge James H. Garrecht Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.63 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.29 3.74 4.00 3.63 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.43 3.74 3.95 3.69 Diligence 3.05 3.78 3.94 3.70 Demeanor 3.55 3.82 4.00 3.75 Fairness N/A 3.80 4.00 3.71 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 89 0 36 40% 42% Total Non- 1171 422 60 8% 17% Attorneys Staff 17 0 11 65% 9% Jurors 40 4 7 19% 0% Other Non- 1114 418 42 6% 24% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **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 Judge James H. Garrecht 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Garrecht, 36 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Garrecht enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. 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 Judge James H. Garrecht 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 Judge James H. Garrecht 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 Judge James H. Garrecht 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht 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 3.63 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.75 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.55 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.68 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.47 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge James H. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Garrecht Promptly issuing a decision on the 15 5 -- -- -- 1 21 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 11 9 -- -- -- 1 21 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 13 6 -- -- -- 2 21 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 13 3 2 1 -- 2 21 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht 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 3.29 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3.26 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.6 are similar 3.15 3.3 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 3.35 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 9 7 3 -- -- 1 20 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 9 7 2 1 -- 1 20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 6 4 -- -- -- 1 11 similar Being fair and impartial to both 11 5 3 1 -- -- 20 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 11 6 2 1 -- -- 20 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.43 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.47 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.42 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 13 2 4 -- -- 1 20 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 12 3 4 -- -- 1 20 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.55 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.45 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.7 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3.5 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 11 7 2 -- -- -- 20 dignity Treating participants with respect 16 2 2 -- -- -- 20 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 12 6 2 -- -- -- 20 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Garrecht on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.05 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.21 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.2 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 8 6 4 2 -- -- 20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 9 6 3 1 -- 1 20 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 9 2 3 -- 1 5 20 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Garrecht meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge James H. Garrecht Yes, meets performance 85% standards No, does not meet 5% performance standards No opinion 10% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge James H. Garrecht, 60 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 49 agreed they had worked with Judge Garrecht enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 49 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. 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. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. 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 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. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.82 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.83 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.87 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.85 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.77 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 41 6 1 -- -- 1 49 Treating participants with respect 44 2 -- -- 1 2 49 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 44 1 1 -- 1 2 49 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 43 1 1 -- 2 2 49 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.8 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.85 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.79 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.76 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.78 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 45 1 1 -- 1 1 49 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 44 2 -- -- 2 1 49 case without bias Treating fairly people who 37 2 -- -- 2 7 48 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 41 2 -- -- 2 4 49 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.69 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.87 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.81 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 38 7 2 -- 1 1 49 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 42 4 1 -- -- 2 49 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 39 7 1 -- -- 2 49 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.78 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.79 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.78 for cases 3.64 3.83 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.8 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.83 wasted time 3.55 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 41 4 1 -- 1 2 49 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 40 3 -- 1 1 4 49 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 39 6 1 -- -- 3 49 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 39 3 1 -- 1 5 49 Managing court proceedings so that there is 41 5 -- 1 -- 2 49 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.74 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.8 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.71 outside pressure 3.55 3.68 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Garrecht All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge James H. Garrecht A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 39 3 1 -- 1 5 49 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 34 6 1 -- 1 7 49 pressure Being able to identify and 37 4 1 -- 2 5 49 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Garrecht meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge James H. Garrecht Yes, meets performance 92% standards No, does not meet 4% performance standards No opinion 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James H. Garrecht 22
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJaammeess HH.. GGaarrrreecchhtt 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 14th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable James H. Garrecht Routt County Combined Courts P.O. Box 773117 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Dear Judge Garrecht: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included 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. James H. Garrecht May 28, 2013 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 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. On average, Judge James H. Garrecht received an overall combined average grade of 3.46 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.42, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.50, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Garrecht Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.46 3.42 3.50 Sample Size - 94 207 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Garrecht’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Garrecht Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 3.39 3.38 13 3.39 66 2010 3.54 3.36 38 3.71 29 2012 3.49 3.48 43 3.50 112 Overall 3.46 3.42 94 3.50 207 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Garrecht’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Garrecht Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Garrecht Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.87 51 25% 3.38 156 75% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 9944)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 94 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 65% 26% 7% 0% 0% 2% 3.59 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 54% 28% 15% 1% 1% 1% 3.34 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 27% 13% 0% 0% 13% 3.40 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 19% 6% 1% 0% 1% 3.65 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.50 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 45% 36% 14% 3% 0% 2% 3.25 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 37% 38% 19% 3% 0% 2% 3.12 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 24% 18% 4% 0% 15% 3.14 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 59% 25% 8% 5% 0% 3% 3.42 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.23 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 77% 18% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3.72 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 39% 14% 2% 0% 3% 3.24 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.48 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 30% 5% 0% 0% 1% 3.59 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 83% 13% 1% 2% 0% 1% 3.78 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 22% 4% 4% 1% 1% 3.52 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 51% 32% 10% 4% 1% 2% 3.30 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.55 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 47% 33% 14% 5% 0% 1% 3.23 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 49% 34% 9% 3% 0% 5% 3.36 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 56% 23% 4% 5% 0% 11% 3.46 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.35 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.42 3.31 * Includes only the County 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 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 7% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 34% 25% Completely neutral 39% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 3% Don't know or not sure 11% 4% 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 72% 56% Recommend retain 19% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 7% Total Retain 91% 79% Neither 7% 9% Total Not Retain 2% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 72% 56% Recommend retain 19% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 91% 78% Neither 7% 9% Total Not Retain 2% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.42 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.50 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.59 case after trial. 3.50 3.34 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.65 3.37 3.23 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 3.25 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 3.12 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 3.42 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.48 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.72 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.24 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.55 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.59 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 3.78 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.52 neutral manner. 3.24 3.30 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.35 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.23 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.36 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.46 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 7% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 34% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 39% Completely Neutral 51% 7% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 2% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 11% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 72% Strongly recommend retain 56% 19% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 7% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Garrecht Judges* Total Retain 91% 79% 0% Recommend not retain Neither 7% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 2% 13% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 72% Strongly recommend retain 56% 19% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 7% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Garrecht Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 91% 78% 5% Neither 7% 9% 2% Total Not Retain 2% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 220077)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 207 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 24% 9% 2% 0% 0% 3.49 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 20% 4% 0% 1% 0% 3.65 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 64% 21% 11% 2% 3% 0% 3.40 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 24% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.52 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.52 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 71% 20% 3% 3% 1% 1% 3.60 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 67% 21% 6% 3% 2% 1% 3.48 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 57% 16% 4% 0% 2% 20% 3.55 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 66% 19% 8% 1% 1% 5% 3.56 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.55 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 68% 24% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3.56 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 23% 3% 1% 0% 0% 3.66 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 69% 25% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.62 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.61 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 70% 22% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.57 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 21% 9% 2% 2% 0% 3.45 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 21% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.46 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 61% 24% 6% 3% 1% 4% 3.48 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 61% 25% 9% 2% 1% 2% 3.45 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.48 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 58% 23% 7% 4% 2% 5% 3.37 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 53% 17% 9% 5% 3% 13% 3.27 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 58% 20% 10% 4% 3% 5% 3.31 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.32 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.50 3.55 * Includes only the County 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 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% 13% Competely neutral 62% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 25% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.23 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% 12% Competely neutral 59% 76% Lenient sentencing total 34% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -1.02 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 60% 67% Recommend retain 17% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 10% 6% Recommend not retain 11% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 77% 85% Neither 10% 6% Total Not Retain 14% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% 64% Recommend retain 16% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% 6% Recommend not retain 10% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% 5% Total Retain 73% 81% Neither 9% 6% Total Not Retain 13% 9% Don't Know 5% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.50 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.52 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.49 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.65 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.40 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.52 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.55 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.60 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.48 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.55 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.56 or her case. 3.58 3.61 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.56 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.66 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.62 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.48 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.57 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.45 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.46 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.48 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.45 little wasted time. 3.49 3.32 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.37 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.27 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.31 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.23 James H. Garrecht 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -1.02 James H. Garrecht 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain 67% 17% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 10% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Garrecht Judges* 11% Recommend not retain Total Retain 77% 85% 3% Neither 10% 6% Total Not Retain 14% 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 64% 16% Recommend retain 17% 9% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 10% Judge Garrecht Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 73% 81% Neither 9% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 13% 9% 6% Total DK 5% 5% Don't know enough to make a 5% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. 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, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or 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 County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges 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 county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county 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 County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 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 asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed 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. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or 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. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges 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 county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 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. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Garrecht is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge James H. Garrecht Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 31 18 1 0 12 40.0% Defense Attorneys 76 40 1 0 35 46.7% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 29 11 1 0 17 60.7% Other Attorneys Civil 73 42 1 0 30 41.7% Total Attorneys 209 111 4 0 94 45.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 66 23 6 1 36 60.0% Other 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 9 2 0 0 7 77.8% Defendant 654 240 347 8 59 19.2% Civil Litigant 187 74 67 0 46 38.3% Witness 19 11 2 0 6 35.3% Other 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Jurors 131 62 16 2 51 44.3% Employees, including Interpreters 3 0 3 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 1074 414 442 11 207 32.8% Grand Total: 1283 525 446 11 301 36.0% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County 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 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% 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 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County 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 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJaammeess HH.. GGaarrrreecchhtt 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable James H. Garrecht Routt County Combined Courts P.O. Box 773117 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Dear Judge Garrecht: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge James H. Garrecht received an overall combined average grade of 3.47 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.42, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.51, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Garrecht Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.47 3.42 3.51 Sample Size - 109 220 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Garrecht’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Garrecht Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 3.54 3.36 38 3.71 29 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.49 3.48 43 3.50 112 2013 3.44 3.43 28 3.44 79 Overall 3.47 3.42 109 3.51 220 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Garrecht’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Garrecht Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.88 61 28% 3.37 159 72% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110099)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 109 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 62% 24% 6% 0% 0% 7% 3.60 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 54% 27% 16% 2% 1% 1% 3.32 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 28% 10% 0% 0% 17% 3.43 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 74% 17% 6% 0% 0% 2% 3.69 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.51 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 43% 39% 12% 3% 0% 3% 3.26 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 39% 37% 19% 3% 0% 3% 3.14 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 24% 18% 5% 0% 17% 3.10 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 62% 23% 7% 6% 0% 1% 3.44 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.24 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 72% 24% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3.68 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 39% 14% 2% 1% 4% 3.22 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.45 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 62% 32% 5% 0% 0% 1% 3.58 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 81% 16% 1% 2% 0% 1% 3.77 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 23% 4% 4% 2% 1% 3.51 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 31% 9% 3% 1% 2% 3.37 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 44% 35% 15% 5% 0% 2% 3.21 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 48% 36% 8% 3% 0% 6% 3.36 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 57% 25% 5% 3% 0% 11% 3.53 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.37 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.42 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 6% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 35% 25% Completely neutral 43% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 2% Don't know or not sure 7% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 69% 55% Recommend retain 23% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 92% 78% Neither 6% 9% Total Not Retain 3% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.42 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.51 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.60 case after trial. 3.50 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.69 3.37 3.24 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.26 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.14 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.10 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 3.44 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.45 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.68 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.22 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht 555 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.56 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.58 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.77 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.51 neutral manner. 3.20 3.37 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.37 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.21 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.36 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.53 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 6% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 35% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 43% Completely Neutral 51% 6% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 3% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 7% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 666 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? 69% Strongly recommend retain 55% 23% Recommend retain 23% 6% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Garrecht Judges* Total Retain 92% 78% 0% Neither 6% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 3% 13% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 777 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 200)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 220 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 6% 3% 2% 0% 3.49 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 18% 4% 1% 1% 0% 3.68 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 65% 19% 9% 4% 3% 0% 3.39 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 22% 6% 3% 0% 1% 3.55 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 71% 21% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3.60 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 18% 6% 2% 3% 0% 3.50 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 61% 13% 3% 0% 2% 20% 3.65 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 19% 6% 0% 1% 5% 3.62 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.59 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 68% 22% 5% 4% 0% 1% 3.55 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 72% 22% 4% 1% 0% 0% 3.65 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 68% 23% 6% 2% 0% 0% 3.57 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.59 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 69% 24% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.58 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 66% 20% 8% 2% 3% 1% 3.44 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 22% 5% 3% 1% 11% 3.47 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 63% 23% 6% 3% 2% 3% 3.45 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 22% 9% 2% 2% 2% 3.44 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.48 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 60% 23% 6% 5% 2% 4% 3.40 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 55% 14% 7% 5% 5% 15% 3.29 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 60% 18% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.35 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.35 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.51 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11944 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 10% 11% Competely neutral 64% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 26% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.41 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 7% 10% Competely neutral 51% 76% Lenient sentencing total 43% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -1.30 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 63% 68% Recommend retain 16% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% 6% Recommend not retain 7% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 5% Total Retain 79% 86% Neither 9% 6% Total Not Retain 13% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 111550 ## Page 14 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.51 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.53 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.49 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.68 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.39 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.59 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.60 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.50 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.65 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.62 or her case. 3.60 3.59 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.55 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.65 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.57 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht 111661 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.48 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.58 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.44 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.47 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.45 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.44 little wasted time. 3.51 3.35 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.40 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.29 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.35 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.41 James H. Garrecht 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -1.30 James H. Garrecht -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111772 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? 63% Strongly recommend retain 68% 16% Recommend retain 18% 9% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Garrecht Judges* 7% Total Retain 79% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 9% 6% Total Not Retain 13% 8% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111883 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 331115 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 331226 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 331337 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 331448 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Garrecht is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 331559 ## Page 23 Judge James H. Garrecht Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 31 15 2 0 14 48.3% Defense Attorneys 82 37 4 0 41 52.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 23 6 1 0 16 72.7% Other Attorneys Civil 81 38 5 0 38 50.0% Total Attorneys 217 96 12 0 109 53.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 101 41 10 1 49 53.8% Other 3 2 0 0 1 33.3% Law Enforcement 19 2 4 0 13 86.7% Defendant 451 147 267 7 30 16.3% Civil Litigant 217 87 82 0 48 35.6% Witness 9 5 0 0 4 44.4% Other 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Jurors 143 64 15 3 61 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 16 3 1 0 12 80.0% Total Non-attorneys 961 351 379 11 220 37.8% Grand Total: 1178 447 391 11 329 41.8% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 332660 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
• 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 JJaammeess HH.. GGaarrrreecchhtt 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable James H. Garrecht Routt County Courthouse P.O. Box 773117 522 Lincoln Ave. Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Dear Judge Garrecht: 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 judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable James H. Garrecht September 24, 2009 Page 2 Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 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, 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 JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3355)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 35 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 40% 34% 9% 3% 0% 14% 3.30 3.48 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 43% 37% 11% 6% 0% 3% 3.21 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 20% 3.25 3.36 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 31% 9% 6% 0% 0% 3.34 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.28 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 41% 32% 24% 0% 0% 3% 3.18 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 23% 37% 23% 9% 0% 9% 2.81 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 20% 23% 23% 3% 0% 31% 2.88 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 60% 12% 8% 0% 0% 20% 3.65 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.13 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 69% 23% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 29% 36% 21% 0% 0% 14% 3.08 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.34 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 60% 31% 6% 0% 3% 0% 3.46 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 71% 23% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3.63 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 29% 9% 3% 0% 0% 3.46 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 57% 26% 11% 3% 0% 3% 3.41 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.49 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 34% 37% 14% 9% 0% 6% 3.03 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 43% 31% 11% 6% 0% 9% 3.22 3.23 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 41% 24% 18% 6% 0% 12% 3.13 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.13 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.27 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges Sample Size = 35 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 44% 30% Completely neutral 33% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 11% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 7% Total Retain 91% 86% Total Not Retain 9% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 76% 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 6% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 7% Total Retain 85% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.27 Overall Average Grade 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.28 3.40 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.30 case after trial. 3.48 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.21 proceedings. 3.40 3.25 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.34 3.35 3.13 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.18 relevant facts. 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.81 3.15 2.88 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.65 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.20 3.34 Q3. Overall Communication 3.36 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.60 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.08 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.23 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges Ju 2d00g9 eIn teJrima mJudeicisal PHerf.o rmGanacre rSeurcvehy t 4 ## Page 8 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.49 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.46 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.40 3.63 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.46 in a neutral manner. 3.20 3.41 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.23 3.13 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.03 releveant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.22 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.23 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.13 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 11% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 44% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 33% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 11% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Cnty Judge Garrecht Judges 3% Total Retain 91% 86% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 9% 14% 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 76% Strongly recommend retain in office 66% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Cnty 6% Judge Garrecht Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 85% 81% Undecided 6% 5% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 9% 13% 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 133 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 14% 9% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 3.52 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 18% 3% 2% 2% 0% 3.60 3.53 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 72% 19% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3.56 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 64% 17% 8% 3% 4% 5% 3.40 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 76% 8% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.57 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 71% 15% 2% 5% 3% 4% 3.50 3.43 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 12% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.43 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 66% 11% 8% 2% 5% 8% 3.46 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.49 3.48 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 70% 16% 9% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 15% 6% 1% 2% 0% 3.65 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 71% 20% 8% 1% 1% 0% 3.59 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.59 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 69% 15% 6% 6% 2% 2% 3.45 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 17% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 16% 3% 2% 3% 15% 3.55 3.50 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 13% 7% 2% 5% 8% 3.46 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 15% 5% 3% 2% 5% 3.54 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.53 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 15% 5% 5% 4% 10% 3.38 3.41 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 53% 11% 7% 4% 4% 22% 3.34 3.43 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 15% 5% 2% 5% 13% 3.41 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.38 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.51 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges Sample Size = 133 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 16% 14% Competely neutral 76% 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.35 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 15% 16% Competely neutral 75% 73% Lenient sentencing total 13% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.06 0.15 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 80% 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 8% 7% Total Retain 90% 90% Total Not Retain 11% 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 69% 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 13% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 6% Total Retain 77% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 13% 9% Total Not Retain 9% 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.51 Overall Average Grade 3.49 3.53 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.54 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.52 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.60 3.53 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.56 manner. 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.40 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.39 3.49 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.48 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.57 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.50 case without bias. 3.43 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.43 themselves. 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.46 or her case. 3.52 3.59 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.61 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.52 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.65 understand. 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.59 can hear what's being said. 3.65 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges Ju 2d00g9 Ient eJrima Jmudiceiasl P eHrfo.r mGanacer Sruervceyht 10 ## Page 14 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.53 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.45 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.66 proceedings. 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.55 3.50 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.46 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.54 little wasted time. 3.43 3.38 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.38 3.41 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.34 possible outside pressure. 3.43 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.41 relevant facts. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.35 James H. Garrecht 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.06 James H. Garrecht 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 James H. Garrecht All County Judges Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Garrecht Judges Total Retain 90% 90% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 11% 10% 3% 8% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 69% Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 8% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 13% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Garrecht Judges Total Retain 77% 82% 2% Undecided 13% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 9% 9% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning county judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in County Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years 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 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys 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 attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, 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. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Garrecht. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table on page below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non- attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Garrecht is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge James H. Garrecht Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 9 3 0 0 6 66.7% Defense Attorneys 7 1 1 0 5 83.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 14 7 1 0 6 46.2% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 19 3 2 1 13 76.5% Other Attorneys Civil 11 5 1 0 5 50.0% Total Attorneys 60 19 5 1 35 63.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Defendant 469 189 228 3 49 20.3% Civil Litigant 132 53 44 1 34 38.6% Witness 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Other 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Jurors 81 28 5 0 48 63.2% Total Non-attorneys 685 271 277 4 133 32.6% Grand Total: 745 290 282 5 168 36.3% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total Other 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 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 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. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. 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 county judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all county judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all county judges. 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 for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey 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. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2909 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 6% 2% 1% 24% 3.48 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 25% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 4% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 26% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 18% 11% 7% 4% 27% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 24% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 29% 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 19% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 20% 11% 7% 4% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 26% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 24% 10% 5% 3% 10% 3.23 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2909 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 97% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 11374 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.47 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 18% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 15% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.43 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.42 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.48 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 17% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.61 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 16% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 60% 22% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 17% 6% 2% 2% 13% 3.50 4d.Being prepared for cases. 67% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.54 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.41 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 57% 13% 5% 3% 4% 18% 3.43 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 16% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 11374 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 16% Competely neutral 73% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.15 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJaammeess HH.. GGaarrrreecchhtt 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable James H. Garrecht Routt County Courthouse P.O. Box 773117 522 Lincoln Ave. Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Dear Judge Garrecht: 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 in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, and second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. 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 non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent 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 non-attorney 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. James H. Garrecht March 30, 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 James H. Garrecht an overall average grade1 of 3.31, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Garrecht an overall average grade of 3.50 resulting in a combined grade of 3.41. The average combined grade for all county judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.41. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Garrecht Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.41 3.31 3.50 Sample Size - 41 155 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Garrecht’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Garrecht Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Score2 Average Score Average Score 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.38 3.48 3.29 3.21 3.23 3.27 3.55 3.72 3.31 Sample Size - - - 16 13 12 69 33 53 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney 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 County judges who were appointed between 2007 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 few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 47%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.82, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Garrecht’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county Judge Garrecht Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.76 3.37 Percent of Sample 34% 66% Sample Size 53 102 County Judge Average 3.82 3.26 Table 3 judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Garrecht’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4411)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 41 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 44% 34% 7% 2% 0% 12% 3.36 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 44% 39% 10% 5% 0% 2% 3.25 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 41% 20% 17% 0% 0% 22% 3.31 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 59% 29% 7% 5% 0% 0% 3.41 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.33 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 38% 38% 20% 0% 0% 5% 3.18 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 20% 41% 22% 7% 0% 10% 2.81 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 20% 27% 20% 2% 0% 32% 2.93 3.04 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 58% 15% 8% 0% 0% 19% 3.62 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 73% 20% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.66 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 30% 40% 15% 0% 0% 15% 3.18 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 29% 5% 0% 2% 0% 3.51 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 76% 20% 2% 2% 0% 0% 3.68 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 63% 27% 7% 2% 0% 0% 3.51 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 29% 10% 2% 0% 5% 3.41 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 37% 39% 12% 7% 0% 5% 3.10 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 39% 34% 10% 5% 0% 12% 3.22 3.26 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 43% 20% 15% 8% 0% 15% 3.15 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.16 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 3.31 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges Sample Size = 41 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 50% 29% Completely neutral 30% 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 10% 5% 8. 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 84% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 7% Total Retain 92% 87% Total Not Retain 8% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 79% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 7% Total Retain 87% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.31 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 3.42 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.36 case after trial. 3.49 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.25 proceedings. 3.43 3.31 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.41 3.37 3.14 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.18 relevant facts. 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.81 3.13 2.93 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.62 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.24 3.42 Q3. Overall Communication 3.38 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.66 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.18 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges Ju d20g10e Ju dJicaialm Peerfosrm aHnc.e GSuravery rReepcorht t 6 ## Page 10 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.53 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.51 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.42 3.68 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.38 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.51 in a neutral manner. 3.23 3.41 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.16 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.10 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.22 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.15 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.37 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 10% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 30% Completely Neutral 48% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 10% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 84% Strongly recommend retain 71% 8% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Judge Garrecht Judges 3% Total Retain 92% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 8% 13% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain 67% 8% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Cnty 5% Judge Garrecht Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 87% 82% Undecided or DK 5% 5% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 8% 13% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess HH.. GGaareecchhtt ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 115)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Sample Size = 155 A B C D Fail DK/NA Garrecht Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 15% 10% 1% 2% 1% 3.53 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 18% 5% 2% 2% 0% 3.59 3.55 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 19% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 64% 16% 9% 3% 3% 4% 3.42 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.52 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 11% 7% 5% 1% 2% 3.56 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3.49 3.46 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 13% 4% 2% 4% 29% 3.40 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 66% 13% 8% 1% 4% 8% 3.48 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.48 3.51 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 69% 18% 8% 2% 2% 1% 3.51 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 18% 5% 1% 1% 0% 3.63 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 70% 21% 7% 1% 1% 0% 3.60 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.58 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 68% 17% 6% 5% 2% 1% 3.47 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.64 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 3% 1% 3% 14% 3.52 3.52 4d. Being prepared for cases. 65% 15% 8% 1% 4% 7% 3.46 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 5% 3% 2% 4% 3.52 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.52 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 61% 16% 5% 5% 4% 10% 3.38 3.44 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 52% 13% 7% 5% 3% 21% 3.33 3.47 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 16% 5% 3% 5% 12% 3.39 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.37 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.50 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge James H. Garrecht James H. All County Garrecht Judges Sample Size = 155 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 18% 14% Competely neutral 73% 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.30 0.14 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% 13% Competely neutral 76% 74% Lenient sentencing total 10% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.04 0.11 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 81% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 6% Total Retain 90% 91% Total Not Retain 9% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 70% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 13% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 78% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 13% 9% Total Not Retain 8% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.50 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.52 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.53 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.59 3.55 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.53 manner. 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.42 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.48 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.51 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.56 heard. 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.49 case without bias. 3.46 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.40 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.48 or her case. 3.55 3.58 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.51 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.60 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.63 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.60 can hear what's being said. 3.66 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht All County Judges Ju 2d01g0 Jeu dJiciaal mPereforsm aHnce. SGurvaeyr Rreepcortht 12 ## Page 16 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.52 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.51 3.47 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.64 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.52 3.52 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.46 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.52 little wasted time. 3.45 3.37 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.45 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.38 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.33 possible outside pressure. 3.47 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.39 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.30 James H. Garrecht 0.14 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.04 James H. Garrecht 0.11 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 James H. Garrecht All County Judges Judge James H. Garrecht Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Garrecht Judges Total Retain 90% 91% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 9% 9% 3% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 70% Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 8% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 13% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Garrecht Judges Total Retain 78% 83% 2% Undecided 13% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 8% 9% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James H. Garrecht All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14 ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. 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 complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial 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 five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five 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. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. 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 could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 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. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17 ## Page 21 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. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the 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 judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 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. 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 Trial 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 county judges—including 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 county 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county 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 Trial 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 Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of 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 judge’s term of office: 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. 2 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. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial 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 county judges—including 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 county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Garrecht is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all county judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Judge James H. Garrecht Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 13 7 0 0 6 46.2% Defense Attorneys 31 18 2 0 11 37.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 34 11 2 1 20 62.5% Other Attorneys Civil 12 7 1 0 4 36.4% Total Attorneys 90 43 5 1 41 48.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Defendant 555 222 270 3 60 21.1% Civil Litigant 151 61 49 1 40 39.2% Witness 4 2 1 0 1 33.3% Other 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Jurors 93 34 6 0 53 60.9% Employees 3 0 3 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 808 320 329 4 155 32.4% Grand Total: 898 363 334 5 196 34.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1275 876 39 2 358 29.0% Defense Attorneys 5161 3380 119 9 1653 32.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 24 10 6 0 8 44.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1440 812 73 2 553 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 660 431 36 1 192 30.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role 26 9 6 0 11 55.0% Total Attorneys 8586 5518 279 14 2775 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 4952 2734 1069 81 1068 28.1% Defendant 26197 14235 9044 287 2631 15.6% Victim 238 163 68 4 3 1.8% Witness 2737 1497 815 111 314 17.3% Other 1604 976 436 17 175 15.2% Civil Litigant 7606 4092 1996 111 1407 25.6% Witness 413 247 78 7 81 24.7% Other 104 74 17 0 13 14.9% Total Non-attorneys 43851 24018 13523 618 5692 18.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 10350 4609 590 201 4950 51.8% Employees 277 119 36 29 93 43.9% Total Other 10627 4728 626 230 5043 50.4% Total 63064 34264 14428 862 13510 27.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 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. None of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2775 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 6% 2% 1% 25% 3.49 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 11% 5% 2% 4% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 23% 12% 6% 4% 9% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 19% 10% 6% 4% 23% 3.04 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 23% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 28% 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 18% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 20% 10% 7% 4% 1% 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 3% 6% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 24% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 10% 3.26 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2775 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% Completely neutral 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. 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 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 10735 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.50 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 4% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.55 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.46 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.51 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 15% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 61% 22% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3.39 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.52 4d.Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.56 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 17% 6% 3% 3% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 4% 2% 4% 18% 3.47 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 10735 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.14 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.11 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 91% Total Not Retain 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
• 2006 cycle
  • 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJaammeess HH.. GGaarrrreecchhtt 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 14th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable James H. Garrecht Routt County Courthouse 522 Lincoln Ave. Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Dear Judge Garrecht: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 April, 26 2006 The Honorable James H. Garrecht 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, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.4 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.1 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.2 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade James H. Garrecht County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.6 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 3.7 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.5 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.6 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.3 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.3 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.2 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.4 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.4 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.5 3.5 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade James H. Garrecht County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.3 2.9 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.3 3.2 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.0 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.0 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.0 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.1 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.4 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.3 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 3.7 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.0 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.4 3.0 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.7 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 3.7 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.8 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.6 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.8 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.5 3.6 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.8 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 3.7 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 3.8 4f. Being consistent in 3.4 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.6 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.4 3.6 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.4 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.4 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 3.7 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.5 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.2 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 2.5 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.4 3.0 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.3 3.3 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.3 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 3.4 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.4 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 3.7 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Garrecht is toward the defense or prosecution? James H. 0.9 Garrecht County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Garrecht's sentences? James H. -0.4 Garrecht County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 86% 83% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 14%14% 13%13% 10% 10% 10% 5%5% 5% 5%5% 5% 4% 4%4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Garrecht Including Undecided C o u n ty J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 59% 54% 56% B 28% 21% 21% C 3% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 10% 19% 17% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Beginning court on time?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 53% 56% B 17% 29% 28% C 11% 9% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 53% 52% 51% B 30% 30% 29% C 10% 10% 11% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 60% 54% 53% B 37% 31% 31% C 3% 9% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 25% 28% 27% B 43% 17% 18% C 4% 5% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 29% 47% 43% Average 3.3 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 61% 63% B 30% 26% 25% C 13% 8% 7% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 38% 43% 44% B 41% 25% 25% C 7% 8% D 3% 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 17% 24% 19% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 48% 48% B 30% 21% 21% C 3% 4% 5% D 3% 1% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 17% 26% 24% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 52% 50% B 27% 29% 30% C 10% 8% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 8% 6% Average 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 30% 50% 53% B 40% 28% 27% C 17% 9% 9% D 10% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 5% 4% Average 2.9 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 54% 57% B 40% 26% 25% C 13% 10% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 23% 20% 28% B 23% 13% 15% C 23% 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 31% 58% 48% Average 3.0 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 27% 30% 29% B 23% 19% 20% C 23% 9% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 23% 34% 33% Average 3.0 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 33% 50% 52% B 37% 31% 30% C 23% 9% 9% D 7% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 55% 58% B 40% 29% 27% C 10% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 53% 57% B 37% 29% 27% C 17% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 38% 33% B 7% 23% 20% C 6% 6% D 3% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 22% 29% 37% Average 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 38% 51% 53% B 17% 22% 22% C 21% 9% 8% D 10% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 12% 12% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 52% 54% B 27% 23% 22% C 10% 7% 7% D 10% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 14% 14% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Speaking clearly?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 72% 73% B 24% 21% 20% C 3% 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 71% 71% B 18% 20% 20% C 7% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Using understandable language?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 79% 73% 74% B 21% 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 66% 69% B 31% 22% 20% C 3% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 83% 69% 70% B 17% 17% 17% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 58% 59% B 28% 23% 22% C 7% 8% 9% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 79% 66% 69% B 21% 20% 18% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 79% 62% 63% B 10% 20% 19% C 10% 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 76% 63% 64% B 24% 22% 21% C 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 62% 63% B 14% 20% 19% C 14% 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 69% 68% 69% B 21% 20% 19% C 10% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 58% 59% B 41% 24% 23% C 7% 8% 8% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 60% 63% B 18% 16% 15% C 4% 4% 3% D 4% 1% 1% Fail 4% 2% 1% No Grade 11% 16% 16% Average 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 56% 52% B 21% 15% 13% C 3% 4% 4% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 10% 21% 28% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 24% 48% 52% B 28% 25% 23% C 28% 9% 8% D 10% 3% 3% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 14% 12% Average 2.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 38% 51% 53% B 38% 28% 27% C 17% 9% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.0 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 46% 49% 53% B 43% 28% 26% C 7% 9% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 7% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 50% 53% B 31% 22% 21% C 10% 7% 7% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 3% 17% 15% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 39% 41% B 17% 16% 16% C 3% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 14% 38% 36% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Garrecht is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 4% 3% 4 5% 5% 5% 3 19% 7% 7% 2 14% 12% 11% 1 10% 19% 18% 38% 47% 47% -1 5% 3% 4% -2 5% 2% 2% -3 5% 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 0.9 0.9 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Garrecht are? Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 3% 4% 3 5% 5% 2 10% 8% 9% 1 15% 15% 76% 58% 55% -1 2% 3% -2 2% 3% -3 5% 1% 2% -4 5% 1% 1% -5 5% 1% 1% Average -0.4 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 86% 76% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 14% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 3% 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 56 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.5 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.7 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.5 Q5. Overall Application 3.4 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade James H. Garrecht County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 57 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.7 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.7 1b. Treating participants 3.5 politely and with respect 3.5 3.6 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.5 3.5 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 58 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.5 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.5 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.5 2b. Treating those involved 3.4 with the case without bias 3.5 3.5 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.4 3.5 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 59 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.6 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.5 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.7 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.6 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 60 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.7 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.6 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.3 3.8 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.6 3.7 4c. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.5 3.7 4d. Being prepared for 3.5 [his/her] cases 3.6 3.7 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.4 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 61 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.5 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.4 3.5 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.4 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 outside pressure 3.5 3.5 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James H. Garrecht County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 62 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Garrecht is toward the defense or prosecution? James H. 0.1 Garrecht County Judges 0.2 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 63 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Garrecht's sentences? James H. 0.3 Garrecht County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 64 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 82% 81% 79% 80% 75% 75% 72% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 12% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6%6% 6% 4% 4% 3%3% 3%3% 2% 2% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S Judge Garrecht S County Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 65 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 65% 69% B 16% 23% 20% C 5% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 66 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 81% 69% 72% B 12% 18% 17% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 67 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 66% 70% B 14% 19% 17% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 4% 3% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 68 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 62% 66% B 14% 20% 18% C 5% 7% 6% D 3% 4% 3% Fail 3% 5% 5% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 69 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 68% 71% B 16% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 70 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 74% 66% 69% B 10% 17% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 3% 4% 3% Fail 5% 5% 4% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 71 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 59% 51% 49% B 9% 13% 11% C 3% 5% 4% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 24% 25% 30% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 72 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 65% 68% B 12% 17% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 6% 6% 5% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 73 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 70% 73% B 22% 18% 16% C 5% 6% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 74 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 71% 74% B 21% 19% 18% C 5% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 75 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 74% 73% 75% B 20% 17% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 76 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 74% 52% 55% B 17% 26% 26% C 5% 11% 10% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 1% 4% 3% Average 3.6 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 77 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 79% 69% 72% B 15% 20% 18% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 78 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 56% 58% B 14% 20% 19% C 3% 7% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 13% 12% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 79 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 63% 67% B 17% 19% 17% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 6% 7% 7% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 80 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 73% 59% 61% B 18% 23% 23% C 3% 9% 8% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 81 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 59% 62% B 15% 19% 18% C 6% 7% 6% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 7% 7% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 82 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 55% 58% B 11% 16% 14% C 6% 5% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 19% 17% 17% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 83 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 62% 60% 64% B 18% 18% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 3% 5% 4% No Grade 12% 8% 8% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 84 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Garrecht is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 3% 3% 2% 4 1% 2% 1% 3 3% 3% 2% 2 1% 3% 3% 1 12% 6% 5% 70% 75% 78% -1 2% 3% 3% -2 3% 2% 2% -3 2% 1% 1% -4 1% 1% 1% -5 2% 2% 2% Average 0.1 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 85 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Garrecht are? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 5% 4% 3% 4 2% 2% 3 6% 2% 2% 2 2% 3% 3% 1 1% 4% 4% 74% 69% 71% -1 5% 5% 5% -2 5% 4% 4% -3 1% 2% 2% -4 1% 1% 1% -5 2% 2% Average 0.3 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 86 James H. Garrecht Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 81% 79% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 12% 10% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 2% 3% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 4% 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2006. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in October 2005, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2006 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 89 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 90 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 91 James H. Garrecht Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 1 1 0 0 0 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 34 23 10 1 0 69.7% Attorney for Plaintiff 12 5 4 3 0 55.6% Unknown/Other Attorney Type 2 1 0 1 0 100.0% Sub Total: 49 30 14 5 0 68.2% Defendant 405 56 192 157 0 22.6% Plaintiff 100 22 65 12 1 25.3% Law Enforcement 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Employee 7 5 2 0 0 71.4% Juror 95 63 29 3 0 68.5% Other 1 1 0 0 0 100.0% Parole Officers 2 1 0 1 0 100.0% Sub Total: 611 148 289 173 1 33.8% Grand Total: 660 178 303 178 1 36.9% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name of Judge] _ _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ DK 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 93 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 advice, what would you say? h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ DK 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ___________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being ___________________________________________________________ prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 94 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office............................ 4 [Name of Judge] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation............. 3 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office..................... 2 Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Name] ? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 95 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? b. Maintaining appropriate control over _ proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Being prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ b. Willing to make decision without regard to _ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
• 2002 cycle
  • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable James H. Garrecht P.O. Box 773117 522 Lincoln Ave. Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Dear Judge Garrecht: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable James H. Garrecht 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, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 86% 64% 65% B 14% 22% 21% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 90% 64% 61% B 10% 20% 22% C 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 81% 55% 48% B 5% 17% 14% C 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 67% 63% B 24% 15% 12% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 69% 66% B 24% 16% 14% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 8% 12% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 70% 66% B 24% 14% 13% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 10% 15% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 66% 65% B 19% 15% 13% C 5% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 10% 13% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 60% 60% B 5% 18% 17% C 14% 9% 8% D 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 5% 4% 5% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 58% 51% B 14% 14% 11% C 5% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 10% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 29% 56% 59% B 48% 15% 12% C 14% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 29% 29% 37% B 43% 22% 23% C 24% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 5% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.1 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 51% 54% B 43% 30% 28% C 14% 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 53% 54% B 29% 27% 26% C 14% 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 62% 64% B 24% 21% 21% C 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 57% 57% B 24% 22% 22% C 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 47% 46% B 19% 27% 27% C 10% 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 5% 3% 4% No Grade 8% 8% Average Grade 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 51% 54% B 29% 27% 28% C 5% 11% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 53% 54% B 14% 24% 25% C 14% 11% 10% D 4% 3% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 56% 58% B 24% 25% 23% C 10% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 48% 49% B 33% 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 21% 21% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 35% 33% B 14% 14% 13% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 5% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 24% 47% 53% B 48% 28% 25% C 24% 12% 9% D 5% 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 2.9 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 48% 49% B 52% 24% 25% C 8% 8% D 10% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 16% 13% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 29% 40% 44% B 38% 30% 29% C 33% 13% 12% D 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 6% 6% Average Grade 3.0 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 29% 49% 50% B 48% 21% 20% C 10% 9% 8% D 5% 4% 3% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 14% 15% Average Grade 3.0 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge James H. Garrecht Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 100% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 11% 11% No opinion 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 65% 67% B 24% 20% 19% C 10% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 1% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 49% 47% B 17% 16% 15% C 10% 6% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 10% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 63% 65% B 11% 15% 14% C 9% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 24% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 65% 67% B 17% 16% 16% C 9% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 17% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 64% 67% B 19% 16% 16% C 11% 6% 5% D 3% 2% 1% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 64% 66% B 14% 16% 15% C 7% 5% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 17% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 63% 65% B 17% 16% 16% C 14% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 10% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 45% 43% B 14% 13% 12% C 7% 5% 4% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 17% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 60% 63% B 17% 16% 16% C 9% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 13% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 68% 70% B 33% 20% 19% C 10% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 67% 69% B 26% 19% 18% C 7% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 69% 72% B 24% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 64% 66% B 21% 18% 17% C 11% 6% 5% D 6% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 55% 56% B 26% 23% 22% C 21% 9% 8% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 55% 57% B 30% 23% 23% C 10% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 61% 64% B 23% 19% 18% C 13% 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 60% 62% B 21% 17% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 9% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 64% 67% B 23% 17% 16% C 11% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 60% 62% B 30% 19% 18% C 9% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Garrecht on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 53% 55% B 26% 15% 14% C 11% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 24% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge James H. Garrecht Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Garrecht be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Garrecht Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 77% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 7% 9% 8% No opinion 16% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge James H. Garrecht Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 6 5 1 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 19 12 7 63.2% Attorney for Plaintiff 7 4 2 1 66.7% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 32 21 9 1 1 70.0% Law Enforcement 6 3 1 2 75.0% Social Services Caseworker 1 1 100.0% Employee 17 13 2 2 86.7% Defendant 188 37 85 60 6 30.3% Plaintiff 18 8 7 3 53.3% Juror 12 7 4 1 63.6% Victim Other 6 1 2 3 33.3% Sub Total: 248 70 101 68 9 40.9% Total: 280 91 110 69 10 45.3% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14

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
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2006 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1998 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1994 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1990 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026