Sara M. Garrido
Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of (10-0) that Judge Sara Garrido MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Garrido was appointed to the Jefferson County Court bench in April 2020. Her docket is a mix of civil (90%) and small claims cases (10%). Judge Garrido is responsible for a large volume of cases, many of which involve pro se (unrepresented) parties and emotional issues, such as evictions and contract disputes. Judge Garrido strives to treat all parties with dignity and respect, regardless of background, and communicates that all parties will be heard and treated with consideration whether they are attorneys or unrepresented parties. Survey results describe her as able to show compassion to parties while still following the law and issuing fair rulings. She is described as knowledgeable, decisive, patient, and highly organized. In this review period, Judge Garrido has improved her knowledge of evictions law and procedure to the point where she is consulted by other judges in the state on evictions issues. Judge Garrido and her staff ensure parties know what to expect when they come to court, through issuing written instructions and informing them of additional information sources such as the Court Resource Center and judicial website. She uses Webex to ensure accessibility to hearings. In the next review period, her goals include ongoing judicial education and continuing to improve court management procedures that demonstrate fairness and impartiality to both sides, particularly those cases in which one side is represented by an attorney and the other side is not. The Commission conducted an interview with Judge Garrido, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, considered feedback from the Chief Judge, and reviewed the 2025 Judicial Performance Survey Report from attorneys and non-attorneys appearing before her. Based on the Commission’s evaluation, Judge Garrido meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories under review. Judge Garrido received a Bachelor of Science in nursing from the University of Miami, Florida. She worked as an ICU nurse before starting law school at the University of Colorado School of Law, where she earned a Juris Doctor degree. Before taking the bench, Judge Garrido was a public defender in Jefferson County for 12 years, then opened a solo practice specializing in criminal, juvenile, and dependency and neglect law. She is a member of the Judicial Discipline Commission, the Access to Justice Housing Subcommittee, and the Housing Forms Subcommittee.
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 71.6% yes158,117 yes · 62,650 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2021 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Sara M. Garrido MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Garrido was appointed to the bench in 2020. Her docket is majority civil, mixed with some criminal and small claim cases. Judge Garrido started her work just as Public Health forced courts to go virtual; she reacted with profound grace and commitment to her litigants during this time. Judge Garrido kept the morale high. She is described as genuinely kind and thoughtful, compassionate, respectful, and fair. Judge Garrido promptly moves cases along yet allows additional time on matters where appropriate, “maintaining a good pace for county court trials.” Judge Garrido believes “county court is not a good place for procrastination,” as she handles over 1,200 cases on average per year. She stays on top of her workload, is organized, and well-prepared. She listens closely to testimony and arguments and considers both sides, while focusing in on critical issues and applying matters to the law. Judge Garrido has a strong grasp of evidence and evidentiary rules and is not afraid to rule decisively on evidentiary objections. However, as a new judge she is still learning. Judge Garrido is committed to continuing to improve her skills. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Garrido, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed the 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report from attorneys and non-attorneys appearing before her, as well as received feedback from the Office of the State Public Defender and the First Judicial District Attorney's Office. Based on the Commission’s evaluation, Judge Garrido’s talents as a judge have surpassed and exceeded all performance standards in each category under review: case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. Judge Garrido received the highest survey ratings in every category among all First Judicial District judges. These ratings are well-deserved as Judge Garrido leads by example as she passionately uses her judicial role to serve people and uphold the law. She looks forward to finding new ways to make her division even better. Judge Garrido wants to make sure that the residents of Jefferson County have the best forum to settle their civil disputes. Judge Garrido received a Bachelor of Science in Nursing at the University of Miami, Florida. She worked as an ICU nurse until she started law school. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado School of Law in 2001. Judge Garrido was a public defender in Jefferson County until 2012, then opened a solo practice specializing in criminal, juvenile, and dependency and neglect law. She is a member of the Judicial Discipline Commission. Outside the courtroom, she volunteers at high school mock trial competitions and dedicates time to special causes such as “Judges Fighting Hunger.” Primer Distrito Judicial Jueza del Tribunal del condado de Jefferson Honorable Sara M. Garrido La Comisión sobre Desempeño Judicial del Primer Distrito Judicial acuerda por unanimidad, con un voto de 10-0, que la Jueza Sara M. Garrido CUMPLE CON LAS NORMAS DE DESEMPEÑO. Las normas de desempeño judicial de las leyes de Colorado son integridad, conocimiento de la ley, habilidades de comunicación, temperamento judicial, desempeño administrativo y servicio a la profesión jurídica y al público. La Jueza Garrido fue nombrada en su cargo en 2020. En su mayor parte, su expediente consiste en casos civiles, combinados con algunos casos penales y de menor cuantía. La Jueza Garrido empezó a trabajar justo cuando los organismos de salud pública obligaron a los tribunales a funcionar de forma virtual. Reaccionó con una prestancia y un compromiso admirables con sus litigantes durante este tiempo. La jueza Garrido mantuvo la moral alta. Se la describe como una persona compasiva, respetuosa y justa, con amabilidad y consideración genuinas. La Jueza Garrido avanza rápidamente en los casos, pero otorga un tiempo adicional en los asuntos cuando es apropiado, “al mantener un buen ritmo para los juicios del tribunal del condado”. La Jueza Garrido cree que “el tribunal del condado no es un buen lugar para procrastinar”, ya que maneja más de 1,200 casos en promedio por año. Se mantiene al tanto de su carga de trabajo, es organizada y está bien preparada. Escucha atentamente los testimonios y los argumentos y considera ambas partes, al tiempo que se centra en las cuestiones claves y somete los asuntos a la ley. La Jueza Garrido tiene un gran conocimiento de las pruebas y de las normas probatorias, y no teme fallar con determinación sobre las objeciones probatorias. Sin embargo, como jueza nueva, todavía está aprendiendo. La Jueza Garrido está comprometida con la mejora continua de sus habilidades. La Comisión efectuó una entrevista personal con la Jueza Garrido, revisó opiniones de su autoría, la observó en el tribunal, analizó el informe de la encuesta de desempeño judicial de 2022 de los abogados y no abogados que comparecen ante ella, y también recibió comentarios de la Defensoría Pública del estado y de la Fiscalía del Primer Distrito Judicial. Conforme a la evaluación de la Comisión, se demostró que el talento de la Jueza Garrido como jueza sobrepasó y excedió todas las normas de desempeño en cada categoría objeto de revisión: gestión de casos, aplicación y conocimiento de la ley, comunicaciones, diligencia, actitud y ecuanimidad. La Jueza Garrido recibió las calificaciones más altas de la encuesta en cada categoría entre todos los jueces del Primer Distrito Judicial. Estas calificaciones son bien merecidas, ya que la Jueza Garrido predica con el ejemplo, pues ejerce con pasión su función judicial para servir a la gente y defender la ley. Espera encontrar maneras nuevas de hacer que su división sea aún mejor. La Jueza Garrido quiere asegurarse de que los residentes del condado de Jefferson tengan el mejor foro para resolver sus disputas civiles. La Jueza Garrido recibió su licenciatura en Enfermería de la Universidad de Miami, Florida. Trabajó como enfermera de la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) hasta que comenzó a estudiar Derecho. Recibió su doctorado en Jurisprudencia de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Colorado en 2001. La Jueza Garrido fue defensora pública en el condado de Jefferson hasta 2012, y luego abrió un despacho por su cuenta con especialización en Derecho Penal, Derecho Juvenil, y casos de dependencia y negligencia. Es integrante de la Comisión de Disciplina Judicial. Fuera del tribunal, es voluntaria en competencias de juicios simulados en escuelas preparatorias y destina su tiempo a causas especiales como “Judges Fighting Hunger” (Jueces que luchan contra el hambre).
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Sara M. Garrido 2021 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 . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Garrido, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.1 3 2 1 0 Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge Garrido All County Judges Overall Grade 3.1 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 80% 79% 80% 76% 67% 60% 40% 33% 20% 14% 13% 12% 12% 8% 5% 0% Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge Garrido All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Garrido Garrido Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 76% 80% 67% 79% standards No, does not meet 12% 14% 33% 13% performance standards No opinion 12% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.5 3.0 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.1 Communications 3.5 3.1 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.3 Fairness 3.4 Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge All County Garrido Judges Case Management 3.3 3.5 Application and 3.0 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.1 3.5 Diligence 3.1 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 3.3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 47 22% 38% 18 Non-Attorneys 21 - - 14 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Garrido received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.5 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.3 3.5 3.6 2.8 25 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 26 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.1 3.4 3.5 2.6 21 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 25 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3 3.3 3.1 2.9 29 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 17 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 10 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 17 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 16 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.7 3.3 N/A 2.7 12 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2.8 3.4 N/A 2.8 11 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.0 27 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 14 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.1 3.6 N/A 3.1 12 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 12 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.5 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.3 3.4 3.6 2.9 28 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.2 28 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.2 3.3 3.4 2.9 28 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.1 3.3 N/A 3.1 12 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Score 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 3.2 3 N/A 17 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 12 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 17 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 12 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 12 Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 11 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.5 3.4 N/A 2.5 8 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 11 ## Page 12 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 11 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Garrido Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 11 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 11 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 10 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 11 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Garrido, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 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 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 15 ## Page 16 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 question on interim. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 218 47 0 18 38% Staff 4 0 4 - Others 140 17 0 10 - Total Non-Attorneys - 21 - 14 - Total Respondents - 68 - 32 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 17 - 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Structured scores pending
Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Sara M. Garrido 2021 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 . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Garrido, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.1 3 2 1 0 Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge Garrido All County Judges Overall Grade 3.1 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 80% 79% 80% 76% 67% 60% 40% 33% 20% 14% 13% 12% 12% 8% 5% 0% Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge Garrido All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Garrido Garrido Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 76% 80% 67% 79% standards No, does not meet 12% 14% 33% 13% performance standards No opinion 12% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.5 3.0 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.1 Communications 3.5 3.1 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.3 Fairness 3.4 Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge All County Garrido Judges Case Management 3.3 3.5 Application and 3.0 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.1 3.5 Diligence 3.1 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 3.3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 47 22% 38% 18 Non-Attorneys 21 - - 14 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Garrido received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.5 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.3 3.5 3.6 2.8 25 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 26 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.1 3.4 3.5 2.6 21 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 25 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3 3.3 3.1 2.9 29 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 17 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 10 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 17 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 16 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.7 3.3 N/A 2.7 12 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2.8 3.4 N/A 2.8 11 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.0 27 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 14 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.1 3.6 N/A 3.1 12 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 12 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.5 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.3 3.4 3.6 2.9 28 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.2 28 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.2 3.3 3.4 2.9 28 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.1 3.3 N/A 3.1 12 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Score 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.1 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 3.2 3 N/A 17 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 12 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 17 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 12 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 12 Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 11 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.5 3.4 N/A 2.5 8 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 11 ## Page 12 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 11 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Garrido Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Garrido County Judges Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 11 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 11 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 10 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 11 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Garrido, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 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 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 15 ## Page 16 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 question on interim. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 218 47 0 18 38% Staff 4 0 4 - Others 140 17 0 10 - Total Non-Attorneys - 21 - 14 - Total Respondents - 68 - 32 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 17 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.8judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend97%75 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend90%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Sara M. Garrido 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Garrido, 46 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 46 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge Garrido All County Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 97% 90% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 12% 10% 3% 4% 6% 0% Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge Garrido All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Garrido Garrido Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 97% 83% 90% 83% standards No, does not meet 3% 13% 0% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 10% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.9 Case Management 3.4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.8 Diligence 3.4 3.9 Demeanor 3.4 3.9 Fairness 3.3 Judge Garrido All County Judges Judge All County Garrido Judges Case Management 3.9 3.4 Application and 3.8 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.8 3.4 Demeanor 3.9 3.4 Fairness 3.9 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 75 20% 45% 34 Non- 17 - - 12 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Garrido received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.9 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Garrido Judges Garrido Garrido Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.9 38 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 40 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.9 31 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.9 35 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.7 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Garrido Judges Garrido Garrido Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.8 3.3 3.7 4.0 40 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 31 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 24 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 29 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 9 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 9 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.8 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Garrido Judges Garrido Garrido Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 41 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 29 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 10 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 10 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.9 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Garrido Judges Garrido Garrido Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 42 Treating participants with respect 4 3.4 3.9 4.0 42 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.3 N/A 4.0 10 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Garrido Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.7 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Garrido Judges Garrido Garrido Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 32 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 18 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 32 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 9 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 9 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 8 cases Being prepared for cases. 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 8 Managing court proceedings so 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 9 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Garrido Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Garrido Attorneys 3.9 Judge Garrido Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Garrido County Judge Garrido Judge Garrido Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 9 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.3 N/A 4.0 9 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 9 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 8 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.9 3.3 3.9 4.0 40 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 32 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Garrido, 46 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 46 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 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 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A 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, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 14 ## Page 15 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 question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 384 75 34 45% Staff - 3 3 - Others 184 13 8 62% Juror - 1 1 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 17 12 - Total Respondents - 92 46 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sara M. Garrido 16
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026