← All judges

Kim H. Goldberger

Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson

Meets Standards(Retain)4 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
    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 First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Kim H. Goldberger BE RETAINED. Judge Goldberger has served for over 26 years as a County Court Judge. He continues to be enthusiastic in his judicial duties. Over the years Judge Goldberger has developed an effective judicial temperament, which has made him an asset to the Jefferson County bench. His work with the state legislature has been instrumental in improving the laws regarding alcohol related offenses (DUI’s). He participates in numerous community organizations, has engaged in many state judicial department activities and has been a panelist or speaker at numerous judicial conferences at the national, state and local levels. Of the attorneys polled, 82% recommend retention, 9% recommend not to retain and 9% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys polled, 79% recommended retention, 12% recommended not to retain and 9% had no opinion.
  • 1998 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that County Judge Kim H. Goldberger BE RETAINED. Judge Goldberger was appointed to the Jefferson County Court in 1975. Prior to his appointment he was in private practice of law. Judge Goldberger's community activities include speaking to school groups and participating on the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness. He presides over civil, traffic, misdemeanor criminal cases and conducts preliminary felony hearings. A majority of groups surveyed recommend that Judge Goldberger be retained. Surveys indicate, and the Commission concurs, that Judge Goldberger continues to have a problem with tardiness. As indicated in previous reviews, this circumstance needs to be remedied. Judge Goldberger acknowledges this concern and is implementing corrective measures. Judge Goldberger is commended for his sense of justice, his ability to help resolve complex disputes, and his compassion.
  • 1994 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain Judge Goldberger was appointed to the County Court in 1975. He is currently presiding judge of the Jefferson County Court. Prior to his judicial appointment he was in the private practice of law. Judge Goldberger participates in community activities including the Governor’s Council on Physical Fitness and speaking to school groups. He presides over civil, traffic, misdemeanor criminal cases, temporary restraining orders and felony preliminary hearings. A significant majority of the responses from groups surveyed recommended that Judge Goldberger be retained. Some respondents indicated a concern about this lack of punctuality. Judge Goldberger is aware of these concerns and is improving his performance in these areas. Responses indicate that he displays a sense of justice, knowledge of the law, and compassion. Based upon this information, the Commission on Judicial Performance recommends Judge Goldberger SHOULD BE RETAINED
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Goldberger was appointed to the county court in October 1975. He practiced law for three years before that. Personal activities include teaching at the National Judicial College, participating in service clubs and community events, and assisting in high school mock trials. Goldberger is a county court judge hearing civil traffic and misdemeanor criminal cases, and felony preliminary hearings. Attorneys, litigants, jurors, and law enforcement officers substantially recommended Goldberger’s retention. However, a majority of those who responded from the Probation Department and court staff recommended not to retain him. Responses from some prosecutors and probation officers indicate Goldberger on occasion enters into discussions of his cases with his staff or attorneys without the other party present. He is knowledgeable, and in his courtroom he is regarded as approachable, friendly and understanding. He demonstrates creative and innovative court practices. He is actively updating and streamlining court procedures.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Kim H. Goldberger Court Section 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401-6002 Dear Judge Goldberger: 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 4, 2002 The Honorable Kim H. Goldberger 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 Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 64% 65% B 36% 22% 21% C 6% 7% 7% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 64% 61% B 36% 20% 22% C 9% 7% 8% D 6% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 55% 48% B 30% 17% 14% C 6% 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 27% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 67% 63% B 21% 15% 12% C 3% 4% 3% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 6% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 69% 66% B 15% 16% 14% C 12% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 8% 12% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 70% 66% B 27% 14% 13% C 6% 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 3% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 66% 65% B 24% 15% 13% C 6% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 10% 13% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 60% 60% B 18% 18% 17% C 12% 9% 8% D 6% 6% 5% Fail 3% 3% 4% No Grade 4% 5% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 58% 51% B 15% 14% 11% C 12% 6% 4% D 3% 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 24% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 56% 59% B 21% 15% 12% C 6% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 9% 3% 2% No Grade 21% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 29% 37% B 6% 22% 23% C 9% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 52% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 51% 54% B 27% 30% 28% C 6% 10% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 53% 54% B 33% 27% 26% C 6% 10% 9% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 62% 64% B 33% 21% 21% C 12% 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 3% 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 57% 57% B 27% 22% 22% C 18% 9% 8% D 6% 5% 5% Fail 3% 3% 4% No Grade 3% 3% 4% Average Grade 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 47% 46% B 24% 27% 27% C 6% 11% 11% D 6% 4% 4% Fail 6% 3% 4% No Grade 12% 8% 8% Average Grade 3.1 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 51% 54% B 36% 27% 28% C 9% 11% 9% D 12% 3% 2% Fail 6% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 2.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 53% 54% B 33% 24% 25% C 12% 11% 10% D 9% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 56% 58% B 30% 25% 23% C 12% 8% 7% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 48% 49% B 21% 18% 18% C 6% 7% 7% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 21% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 27% 35% 33% B 21% 14% 13% C 6% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 42% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 47% 53% B 24% 28% 25% C 15% 12% 9% D 6% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.1 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 48% 49% B 21% 24% 25% C 12% 8% 8% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 21% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 40% 44% B 33% 30% 29% C 9% 13% 12% D 9% 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 3% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.2 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 49% 50% B 27% 21% 20% C 9% 9% 8% D 6% 4% 3% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 14% 15% Average Grade 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Goldberger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 82% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 9% 11% 11% No opinion 9% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 65% 67% B 23% 20% 19% C 9% 7% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 49% 47% B 26% 16% 15% C 3% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 24% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 63% 65% B 18% 15% 14% C 3% 4% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 65% 67% B 16% 16% 16% C 9% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 64% 67% B 16% 16% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 64% 66% B 18% 16% 15% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 9% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 63% 65% B 20% 16% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 9% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 45% 43% B 17% 13% 12% C 5% 5% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 28% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 60% 63% B 14% 16% 16% C 3% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 26% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 68% 70% B 18% 20% 19% C 3% 6% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 67% 69% B 17% 19% 18% C 5% 6% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 69% 72% B 15% 17% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 64% 66% B 17% 18% 17% C 5% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 8% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 55% 56% B 20% 23% 22% C 12% 9% 8% D 2% 2% 3% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 55% 57% B 29% 23% 23% C 9% 9% 9% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 7% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 61% 64% B 20% 19% 18% C 8% 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 60% 62% B 16% 17% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 7% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 10% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 64% 67% B 15% 17% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 60% 62% B 21% 19% 18% C 3% 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Goldberger on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 53% 55% B 9% 15% 14% C 3% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 21% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Kim H. Goldberger Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Goldberger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Goldberger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 79% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 12% 9% 8% No opinion 9% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 1 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 Kim H. Goldberger Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 6 2 4 33.3% Attorney For Defendant 37 29 2 4 2 93.5% Attorney for Plaintiff 2 2 100.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 45 33 6 4 2 84.6% Law Enforcement Social Services Caseworker Employee 8 5 2 1 71.4% Defendant 226 32 116 63 15 21.6% Plaintiff 52 10 23 11 8 30.3% Juror 114 40 37 5 32 51.9% Victim 2 2 Other 35 6 21 5 3 22.2% Sub Total: 437 93 199 84 61 31.8% Total: 482 126 205 88 63 38.1% 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 1

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