Michael A. Gonzales
Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa
Meets Standards4 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Alamosa · AlamosaMeets 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) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (6-0), with two commission vacancies and two commissioners absent, finds that Judge Michael A. Gonzales MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The performance standards contemplate the judge’s integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Gonzales handles criminal, civil, juvenile and misdemeanor cases. In making its recommendation, the Commission reviewed surveys from attorneys and non-attorneys, including litigants, jurors, and others who have appeared before Judge Gonzales during the retention period. The Commission also reviewed Judge Gonzales’s self-evaluation and samples of his written work. Finally, the commissioners observed Judge Gonzales’s courtroom and conducted a personal interview. Of the attorneys responding, 100% agreed that Judge Gonzales meets performance standards. Of the non-attorney respondents to the survey, 89% agreed that Judge Gonzales meets performance standards. The Commission felt that Judge Gonzales’s overall performance as a district court judge was well above the required standards. Surveys sent out by the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation rate judges in categories of case management, application and knowledge of law, communication, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. The results of the surveys demonstrated that of all the judges in the 12th Judicial District up for review, his scores were consistently some of the highest in the District. This demonstrates Judge Gonzales’s commitment to self-improvement and ability to effectively communicate with the public. Judge Gonzales’s written and oral decisions are thorough, concise, and communicated efficiently. There were no concerns from the Commission regarding fairness or bias on the part of Judge Gonzales towards any party. The Commission observed Judge Gonzales's sincere dedication to his community and his aspiration to foster a deeper public understanding that the Court and the judiciary remain integral, accessible parts of that community. Judge Gonzales took the district court bench in October 2011 and served as Chief Judge from January 2020 to July 2023. Prior to his appointment to the district court bench, Judge Gonzales served as a deputy district attorney for the 12th Judicial District for ten years before becoming the Alamosa County Court judge. Judge Gonzales received a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science from Creighton University in 1993. He graduated from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1996. Off the bench, Judge Gonzales has been involved in coaching local youth sports, served on the board of directors for the Caring for Colorado Foundation from 2010 to 2016, and in 2022 he was appointed to the board of directors for the Robert Hoag Rawlings Foundation.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Alamosa · AlamosaMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 73.5% yes16,115 yes · 5,798 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (7-0) that Chief Judge Michael A. Gonzales MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. In making its recommendation, the Commission reviewed surveys from attorneys and non-attorneys, including litigants, jurors, and others who have appeared before Judge Gonzales during the retention period. The Commission also reviewed Judge Gonzales’ self-evaluation and samples of his written work. Finally, the commissioners observed Judge Gonzales’ courtroom and conducted a personal interview. Of the attorneys responding, 100% agreed that Judge Gonzales meets performance standards. Of the non-attorney respondents to the survey, 100% agreed that Judge Gonzales meets performance standards. The Commission felt that Chief Judge Gonzales’ overall performance as a district court judge was outstanding. Surveys sent out by the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation rate judges in categories of case management, application and knowledge of law, communication, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. The results of the surveys answered scored Chief Judge Gonzales above the statewide district judge averages in all areas. Chief Judge Gonzales’ written and oral decisions are thorough, concise, and communicated efficiently. There were no concerns from the Commission regarding fairness or bias on the part of Judge Gonzales towards any party. That is the area in which Chief Judge Gonzales was rated the highest in the surveys returned. The Commission recognized the unique challenges that Judge Gonzales has had to address with the recent COVID 19 pandemic and managing the district court dockets with two fairly new appointed district court judges. The Commission commended Chief Judge Gonzales’ dedication and hard work he has put forth for the 12th Judicial District.
- 2014 retention cycleTrial Court · Alamosa · AlamosaMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 72.0% yes11,196 yes · 4,365 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 10 to 0 that District Judge Michael A. Gonzales BE RETAINED. Judge Gonzales took the District Court Bench in October 2011. Prior to his appointment to the District Court, Judge Gonzales was the Alamosa County Court Judge. Judge Gonzales was also a Deputy District Attorney for the Twelfth Judicial District for ten years prior to becoming the County Court Judge. Judge Gonzales received a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science from Creighton University in 1993. He graduated from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1996. Judge Gonzales has been involved in many different ways with local youth sports and has served on the Board of Directors for the Caring for Colorado Foundation since 2010. In making its recommendation, the Commission reviewed surveys from attorneys and non-attorneys, including litigants, jurors, and others who have appeared before Judge Gonzales during the retention period. The Commission also reviewed Judge Gonzales’ self-evaluation and samples of his written work. Finally, the Commissioners observed Judge Gonzales’ courtroom and conducted a personal interview. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 81% recommended that Judge Gonzales be retained, 7% recommended that he not be retained, and 11% made no recommendation. Of the non-attorney respondents to the survey, 86% recommended that Judge Gonzales be retained, 7% recommended that he not be retained, and 7% made no recommendation. The Commission felt that Judge Gonzales’ overall performance in his first term as a District Court Judge was outstanding. Judge Gonzales’ written and oral decisions are thorough, but concise and communicated efficiently. Judge Gonzales should, however, work towards issuing decisions in a more timely fashion. There were no concerns from the Commission with regard to a lack of fairness or bias on the part of Judge Gonzales towards any party. The Commission recognized particular growth by Judge Gonzales in the areas of judicial temperament and the appropriate management of his courtroom. The Commission further commends Judge Gonzales for his efforts to improve the use of appropriate decorum when appearing before the Court and for working to avoid the appearance of impropriety in his courtroom.
- 2010 retention cycleTrial Court · Alamosa · AlamosaMeets Standards(Retain)Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends, by an 8 to 2 vote, that Judge Michael A. Gonzales BE RETAINED. Judge Gonzales was appointed to the Alamosa County bench on September 6, 2007. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science/History from Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1993, and a law degree from the University Of Colorado School Of Law in Boulder, Colorado in 1996. Judge Gonzales is a member of the board of directors for: Caring for Colorado, Twelfth Judicial District Juvenile Services Planning Committee, and the San Luis Valley Bar Association Pro Bono Project. He stays connected to the community by being involved in youth coaching activities. As Alamosa County Judge, Judge Gonzales presides over traffic cases, misdemeanors, petty offenses, felony preliminary hearings, small claims, and civil cases not exceeding $15,000. Currently his workload consists of 20% civil, 15% criminal, 20% misdemeanor, 23% traffic, 20% traffic infractions, and 2% small claims cases. Previous to his appointment to the bench Judge Gonzales held the position of Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Twelfth Judicial District from March 2001 to September 2007 and Deputy District Attorney from February 1997 to March 2001. Prior to his service as a district attorney Judge Gonzales was in private practice. Judge Gonzales is given high marks by attorneys for maintaining appropriate control over proceedings and treating participants with respect. He is applauded for his consistency and providing guidance to the new district attorney and deputies, and public defenders. It must be noted that the Commission did hear some negative comments from some who feel that Judge Gonzales can lose his patience and let his temper get the best of him. This is a short-coming to which he admits and is working hard to correct. The Commission would encourage continued improvement in his court demeanor. Judge Gonzales also admitted that he could use additional training in civil areas of law, and the Commission agrees. It is the Commission’s opinion that Judge Gonzales would benefit from the intense training offered by the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. Comments received by the Commission indicate that there is general public approval of Judge Gonzales and it appears that he is well respected in the community and viewed as a fair and honest Judge. While staying connected to the community is important, the Commission feels that Judge Gonzales should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 85% recommended to retain, 5% not to retain, and 11% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 94% recommended to retain and 6% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 74% recommended to retain, 7% not to retain, and 20% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 78% recommended to retain and 22% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 12th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Michael A. Gonzales Alamosa County Courthouse 702 4th St. Alamosa, CO 81101 Dear Judge Gonzales: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Michael A. Gonzales May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Michael A. Gonzales received an overall combined average grade of 3.26 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.13, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.39, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Gonzales Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.26 3.13 3.39 Sample Size - 18 48 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Gonzales’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Gonzales Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 3.58 3.57 4 3.58 8 2009 3.30 3.42 21 3.17 72 2010 3.31 3.11 22 3.51 46 2012 3.26 3.13 18 3.39 48 Overall 3.26 3.13 18 3.39 48 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.87, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.30. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Gonzales’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Gonzales Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Gonzales Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.65 23 48% 3.16 25 52% 3.87 3.30 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1188)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Sample Size = 18 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 33% 22% 11% 11% 0% 22% 3.00 3.39 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 11% 22% 0% 0% 0% 3.44 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 33% 33% 11% 6% 6% 11% 2.94 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 17% 11% 11% 6% 6% 3.00 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.10 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 39% 39% 11% 6% 0% 6% 3.18 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 44% 22% 11% 17% 0% 6% 3.00 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 50% 0% 17% 6% 6% 22% 3.07 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 40% 40% 20% 0% 0% 0% 3.20 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.11 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 61% 28% 6% 6% 0% 0% 3.44 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 39% 6% 11% 0% 6% 3.12 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.28 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 61% 11% 22% 6% 0% 0% 3.28 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 50% 22% 17% 6% 6% 0% 3.06 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 50% 6% 28% 6% 6% 6% 2.94 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 39% 33% 11% 6% 6% 6% 3.00 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.07 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 44% 33% 17% 6% 0% 0% 3.17 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 22% 17% 6% 0% 0% 3.28 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 11% 17% 11% 0% 11% 3.13 3.40 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.19 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.13 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Gonzales Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 27% Completely neutral 30% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 20% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 10% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 39% 57% Recommend retain 44% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Total Retain 83% 81% Neither 6% 9% Total Not Retain 11% 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 39% 57% Recommend retain 44% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 1% Total Retain 83% 81% Neither 6% 9% Total Not Retain 11% 11% Don't Know 0% 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.13 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.10 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.00 case after trial. 3.39 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 2.94 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.00 3.29 3.11 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.28 3.00 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.07 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.20 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.14 when circumstances are similar. 3.28 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.44 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.12 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.29 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.07 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.28 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.46 3.06 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.94 neutral manner. 3.28 3.00 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.19 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.17 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.28 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.13 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.40 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 10% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 30% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 30% Completely Neutral 47% 20% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 10% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 39% Strongly recommend retain 57% 44% Recommend retain 24% Excluding DK Respondents 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Gonzales Judges* Total Retain 83% 81% 0% Recommend not retain Neither 6% 9% 5% Total Not Retain 11% 11% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 39% Strongly recommend retain 57% 44% Recommend retain 24% Including DK Respondents 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Gonzales Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 83% 81% 5% Neither 6% 9% 11% Total Not Retain 11% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total DK 0% 1% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4488)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Sample Size = 48 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 21% 10% 2% 4% 0% 3.35 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 64% 23% 9% 2% 2% 0% 3.45 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 23% 6% 6% 6% 0% 3.21 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 58% 25% 6% 0% 8% 2% 3.28 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 60% 23% 8% 4% 4% 0% 3.31 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 63% 17% 4% 0% 15% 2% 3.15 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 42% 13% 4% 6% 0% 35% 3.39 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 56% 21% 4% 4% 4% 10% 3.35 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.30 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 70% 17% 11% 2% 0% 0% 3.55 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 69% 23% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 71% 21% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.63 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.59 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 56% 25% 8% 4% 4% 2% 3.28 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 69% 21% 6% 0% 2% 2% 3.57 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 65% 17% 6% 8% 0% 4% 3.43 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 69% 19% 6% 2% 0% 4% 3.61 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 50% 31% 8% 8% 2% 0% 3.19 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.42 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 4% 6% 4% 4% 3.38 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 64% 9% 4% 4% 6% 13% 3.37 3.61 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 19% 4% 4% 6% 10% 3.28 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.34 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.39 3.64 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Gonzales Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 22% 9% Competely neutral 69% 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.33 0.07 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 19% 9% Competely neutral 61% 81% Lenient sentencing total 19% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.39 0.05 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% 74% Recommend retain 9% 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 4% Recommend not retain 5% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 5% Total Retain 73% 89% Neither 14% 4% Total Not Retain 14% 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 61% 71% Recommend retain 9% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% 4% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% 4% Total Retain 70% 85% Neither 13% 4% Total Not Retain 13% 7% Don't Know 4% 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.39 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.32 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.35 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.45 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.21 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.28 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.58 3.30 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.31 heard. 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.15 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.39 themselves. 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.35 or her case. 3.66 3.59 Q3. Overall Communications 3.73 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.55 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.60 understand. 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.63 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.42 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.28 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.57 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.43 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.61 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.19 little wasted time. 3.57 3.34 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.38 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.37 possible outside pressure. 3.61 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.28 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.33 Michael A. Gonzales 0.07 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.39 Michael A. Gonzales 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 64% Strongly recommend retain 74% 9% Recommend retain 15% Excluding DK Respondents 14% Neither retain nor not retain 4% All Dist Judge Gonzales Judges* 5% Recommend not retain Total Retain 73% 89% 2% Neither 14% 4% Total Not Retain 14% 7% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 61% Strongly recommend retain 71% 9% Recommend retain 14% 13% Neither retain nor not retain 4% Including DK Respondents All Dist 4% Judge Gonzales Judges* Recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 70% 85% Neither 13% 4% 9% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 13% 7% 5% Total DK 4% 4% Don't know enough to make a 4% recommendation 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Gonzales is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all district judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4 0 0 0 4 100.0% Defense Attorneys 10 4 0 0 6 60.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 6 5 0 0 1 16.7% Other Attorneys Civil 22 9 6 0 7 43.8% Total Attorneys 42 18 6 0 18 50.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 17 10 1 0 6 37.5% Law Enforcement 11 5 3 0 3 37.5% Defendant 96 48 34 1 13 21.0% Civil Litigant 15 10 2 0 3 23.1% Jurors 44 16 5 0 23 59.0% Total Non-attorneys 183 89 45 1 48 34.8% Grand Total: 225 107 51 1 66 37.9% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3130 2013 120 1 996 33.1% Defense Attorneys 4130 2444 84 0 1602 39.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 248 125 13 0 110 46.8% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4708 2028 213 2 2465 54.8% Other Attorneys Civil 4027 1956 366 2 1703 46.5% GAL 29 12 0 0 17 58.6% Total Attorneys 16272 8578 796 5 6893 44.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 109 66 23 5 15 17.4% Witness 5404 2746 1591 265 802 21.0% Other 832 471 248 10 103 17.6% Law Enforcement 4235 2320 1024 167 724 22.5% Defendant 20502 9362 9533 132 1475 13.4% Civil Litigant 12103 6801 2810 219 2273 24.5% Witness 498 251 99 15 133 33.3% Other 454 196 99 21 138 38.9% Jurors 17494 7070 1191 267 8966 55.0% Employees, including Interpreters 233 68 29 22 114 55.9% Probation Officers 116 42 4 8 62 55.4% Total Non-attorneys 61980 29393 16651 1131 14805 32.7% Grand Total: 78252 37971 17447 1136 21698 35.7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6893 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 51% 20% 8% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 13% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 11% 5% 2% 2% 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 24% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 19% 10% 6% 5% 25% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 39% 26% 10% 5% 3% 17% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 23% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 23% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 66% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 19% 10% 5% 4% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 23% 9% 5% 3% 4% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 17% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.40 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.64 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 12% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 68% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.63 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.61 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% Competely neutral 81% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.05 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 89% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 71% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% Total Retain 85% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 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.
- 2020 cycle
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.8judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend100%9 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend100%8 respondents
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Michael A. Gonzales 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Gonzales, 14 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 14 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 Gonzales All District Judges Judge Gonzales All District Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 92% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Gonzales All District Judges Judge Gonzales All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Gonzales Gonzales Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 83% 100% 92% standards No, does not meet 0% 12% 0% 6% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 4.0 Communications 3.5 3.9 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.5 4.0 Fairness 3.7 Judge Gonzales All District Judges Judge All District Gonzales Judges Case 3.8 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.8 3.3 Law Communications 4.0 3.5 Diligence 3.9 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.5 Fairness 4.0 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 9 20% 67% 6 Non-Attorneys 8 47% 100% 8 In addition to the responses above, Judge Gonzales received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Gonzales Overall 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Gonzales Attorneys 3.8 Judge Gonzales Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Judge District Judge Gonzales Number of Gonzales Judges Gonzales Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 9 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 14 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.9 11 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.7 13 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Gonzales Overall 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Gonzales Attorneys 3.9 Judge Gonzales Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge District Judge Gonzales Number of Gonzales Judges Gonzales Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.9 3.4 4 3.9 10 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 5 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 5 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 7 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 6 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Gonzales Overall 4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Gonzales Attorneys 3.9 Judge Gonzales Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge District Judge Gonzales Number of Gonzales Judges Gonzales Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 4 3.6 4 4.0 12 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 3 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 7 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 7 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Gonzales Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Gonzales Attorneys 3.7 Judge Gonzales Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge District Judge Gonzales Number of Gonzales Judges Gonzales Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7 12 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.7 12 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.7 12 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 7 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Gonzales Score 3.9 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Gonzales Attorneys 3.9 Judge Gonzales Non-Attorneys 3.9 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge District Judge Gonzales Number of Gonzales Judges Gonzales Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4 3.3 4 N/A 4 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 4 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 4 3.4 4 N/A 3 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 7 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 7 Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 7 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 7 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 7 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Gonzales Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Gonzales Attorneys Judge Gonzales Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Gonzales Gonzales Gonzales Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 7 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 7 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 7 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 7 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Gonzales 4 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Gonzales enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Gonzales Score 3.8 Judge Gonzales District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 3.6 4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Gonzales, 14 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 14 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. 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 2019 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. 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 16 ## Page 17 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 4 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Gonzales to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 46 9 0 6 67% Staff 17 8 0 8 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 17 8 0 8 100% Total Respondents 63 17 0 14 82% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael A. Gonzales 19
- 2014 cycle
- 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 12th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Michael A. Gonzales Alamosa County Courthouse 702 4th St. Alamosa, CO 81101 Dear Judge Gonzales: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Michael A. Gonzales May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Michael A. Gonzales received an overall combined average grade of 3.26 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.13, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.39, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Gonzales Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.26 3.13 3.39 Sample Size - 18 48 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Gonzales’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Gonzales Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 3.58 3.57 4 3.58 8 2009 3.30 3.42 21 3.17 72 2010 3.31 3.11 22 3.51 46 2012 3.26 3.13 18 3.39 48 Overall 3.26 3.13 18 3.39 48 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.87, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.30. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Gonzales’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Gonzales Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Gonzales Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.65 23 48% 3.16 25 52% 3.87 3.30 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1188)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Sample Size = 18 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 33% 22% 11% 11% 0% 22% 3.00 3.39 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 11% 22% 0% 0% 0% 3.44 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 33% 33% 11% 6% 6% 11% 2.94 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 17% 11% 11% 6% 6% 3.00 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.10 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 39% 39% 11% 6% 0% 6% 3.18 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 44% 22% 11% 17% 0% 6% 3.00 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 50% 0% 17% 6% 6% 22% 3.07 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 40% 40% 20% 0% 0% 0% 3.20 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.11 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 61% 28% 6% 6% 0% 0% 3.44 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 39% 6% 11% 0% 6% 3.12 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.28 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 61% 11% 22% 6% 0% 0% 3.28 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 50% 22% 17% 6% 6% 0% 3.06 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 50% 6% 28% 6% 6% 6% 2.94 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 39% 33% 11% 6% 6% 6% 3.00 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.07 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 44% 33% 17% 6% 0% 0% 3.17 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 22% 17% 6% 0% 0% 3.28 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 11% 17% 11% 0% 11% 3.13 3.40 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.19 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.13 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Gonzales Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 27% Completely neutral 30% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 20% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 10% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 39% 57% Recommend retain 44% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Total Retain 83% 81% Neither 6% 9% Total Not Retain 11% 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 39% 57% Recommend retain 44% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 1% Total Retain 83% 81% Neither 6% 9% Total Not Retain 11% 11% Don't Know 0% 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.13 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.10 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.00 case after trial. 3.39 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 2.94 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.00 3.29 3.11 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.28 3.00 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.07 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.20 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.14 when circumstances are similar. 3.28 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.44 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.12 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.29 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.07 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.28 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.46 3.06 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.94 neutral manner. 3.28 3.00 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.19 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.17 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.28 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.13 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.40 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 10% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 30% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 30% Completely Neutral 47% 20% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 10% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 39% Strongly recommend retain 57% 44% Recommend retain 24% Excluding DK Respondents 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Gonzales Judges* Total Retain 83% 81% 0% Recommend not retain Neither 6% 9% 5% Total Not Retain 11% 11% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 39% Strongly recommend retain 57% 44% Recommend retain 24% Including DK Respondents 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Gonzales Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 83% 81% 5% Neither 6% 9% 11% Total Not Retain 11% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total DK 0% 1% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4488)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Sample Size = 48 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 21% 10% 2% 4% 0% 3.35 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 64% 23% 9% 2% 2% 0% 3.45 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 23% 6% 6% 6% 0% 3.21 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 58% 25% 6% 0% 8% 2% 3.28 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 60% 23% 8% 4% 4% 0% 3.31 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 63% 17% 4% 0% 15% 2% 3.15 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 42% 13% 4% 6% 0% 35% 3.39 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 56% 21% 4% 4% 4% 10% 3.35 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.30 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 70% 17% 11% 2% 0% 0% 3.55 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 69% 23% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 71% 21% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.63 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.59 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 56% 25% 8% 4% 4% 2% 3.28 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 69% 21% 6% 0% 2% 2% 3.57 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 65% 17% 6% 8% 0% 4% 3.43 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 69% 19% 6% 2% 0% 4% 3.61 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 50% 31% 8% 8% 2% 0% 3.19 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.42 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 4% 6% 4% 4% 3.38 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 64% 9% 4% 4% 6% 13% 3.37 3.61 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 19% 4% 4% 6% 10% 3.28 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.34 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.39 3.64 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Gonzales Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 22% 9% Competely neutral 69% 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.33 0.07 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 19% 9% Competely neutral 61% 81% Lenient sentencing total 19% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.39 0.05 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% 74% Recommend retain 9% 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 4% Recommend not retain 5% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 5% Total Retain 73% 89% Neither 14% 4% Total Not Retain 14% 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 61% 71% Recommend retain 9% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% 4% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% 4% Total Retain 70% 85% Neither 13% 4% Total Not Retain 13% 7% Don't Know 4% 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.39 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.32 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.35 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.45 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.21 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.28 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.58 3.30 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.31 heard. 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.15 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.39 themselves. 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.35 or her case. 3.66 3.59 Q3. Overall Communications 3.73 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.55 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.60 understand. 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.63 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.42 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.28 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.57 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.43 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.61 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.19 little wasted time. 3.57 3.34 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.38 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.37 possible outside pressure. 3.61 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.28 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.33 Michael A. Gonzales 0.07 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.39 Michael A. Gonzales 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 64% Strongly recommend retain 74% 9% Recommend retain 15% Excluding DK Respondents 14% Neither retain nor not retain 4% All Dist Judge Gonzales Judges* 5% Recommend not retain Total Retain 73% 89% 2% Neither 14% 4% Total Not Retain 14% 7% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 61% Strongly recommend retain 71% 9% Recommend retain 14% 13% Neither retain nor not retain 4% Including DK Respondents All Dist 4% Judge Gonzales Judges* Recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 70% 85% Neither 13% 4% 9% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 13% 7% 5% Total DK 4% 4% Don't know enough to make a 4% recommendation 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Gonzales is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all district judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4 0 0 0 4 100.0% Defense Attorneys 10 4 0 0 6 60.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 6 5 0 0 1 16.7% Other Attorneys Civil 22 9 6 0 7 43.8% Total Attorneys 42 18 6 0 18 50.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 17 10 1 0 6 37.5% Law Enforcement 11 5 3 0 3 37.5% Defendant 96 48 34 1 13 21.0% Civil Litigant 15 10 2 0 3 23.1% Jurors 44 16 5 0 23 59.0% Total Non-attorneys 183 89 45 1 48 34.8% Grand Total: 225 107 51 1 66 37.9% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3130 2013 120 1 996 33.1% Defense Attorneys 4130 2444 84 0 1602 39.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 248 125 13 0 110 46.8% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4708 2028 213 2 2465 54.8% Other Attorneys Civil 4027 1956 366 2 1703 46.5% GAL 29 12 0 0 17 58.6% Total Attorneys 16272 8578 796 5 6893 44.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 109 66 23 5 15 17.4% Witness 5404 2746 1591 265 802 21.0% Other 832 471 248 10 103 17.6% Law Enforcement 4235 2320 1024 167 724 22.5% Defendant 20502 9362 9533 132 1475 13.4% Civil Litigant 12103 6801 2810 219 2273 24.5% Witness 498 251 99 15 133 33.3% Other 454 196 99 21 138 38.9% Jurors 17494 7070 1191 267 8966 55.0% Employees, including Interpreters 233 68 29 22 114 55.9% Probation Officers 116 42 4 8 62 55.4% Total Non-attorneys 61980 29393 16651 1131 14805 32.7% Grand Total: 78252 37971 17447 1136 21698 35.7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6893 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 51% 20% 8% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 13% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 11% 5% 2% 2% 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 24% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 19% 10% 6% 5% 25% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 39% 26% 10% 5% 3% 17% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 23% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 23% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 66% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 19% 10% 5% 4% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 23% 9% 5% 3% 4% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 17% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.40 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.64 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 12% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 68% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.63 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.61 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% Competely neutral 81% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.05 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 89% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 71% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% Total Retain 85% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Michael A. Gonzales Alamosa County Courthouse 702 4th St. Alamosa, CO 81101 Dear Judge Gonzales: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Michael A. Gonzales received an overall combined average grade of 3.38 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.15, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.60, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge Gonzales Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.38 3.15 3.60 Sample Size - 45 126 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Gonzales’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Gonzales Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 3.58 3.57 4 3.58 8 2009 3.30 3.42 21 3.17 72 2010 3.31 3.11 22 3.51 46 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.26 3.13 18 3.39 48 2013 3.44 3.15 27 3.73 78 Overall 3.38 3.15 45 3.60 126 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.80, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Gonzales’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Gonzales Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.76 74 59% 3.38 52 41% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4455)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Sample Size = 45 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 36% 20% 9% 7% 0% 27% 3.19 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 66% 14% 16% 5% 0% 0% 3.41 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 41% 32% 11% 2% 5% 9% 3.13 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 7% 5% 2% 3.19 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.23 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 48% 30% 14% 5% 0% 5% 3.26 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 43% 25% 16% 14% 0% 2% 3.00 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 27% 16% 20% 7% 5% 25% 2.73 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 36% 28% 24% 4% 0% 8% 3.04 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.01 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 59% 32% 5% 2% 0% 2% 3.51 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 27% 14% 5% 0% 16% 3.19 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.35 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 59% 16% 16% 5% 2% 2% 3.28 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 55% 20% 14% 5% 7% 0% 3.11 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 52% 11% 25% 2% 7% 2% 3.02 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 36% 32% 16% 5% 5% 7% 2.98 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.10 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 36% 32% 18% 9% 0% 5% 3.00 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 48% 25% 18% 2% 0% 7% 3.27 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 48% 16% 23% 5% 0% 9% 3.18 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.15 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.15 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Gonzales Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 8% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 40% 27% Completely neutral 16% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 16% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 4% 2% Don't know or not sure 16% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 36% 56% Recommend retain 45% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 11% 8% Recommend not retain 2% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 81% 80% Neither 11% 8% Total Not Retain 7% 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.15 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.23 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.19 case after trial. 3.44 3.41 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.13 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.19 3.28 3.01 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.26 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.00 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 2.73 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.35 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.51 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.19 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.10 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.28 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.11 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.02 neutral manner. 3.28 2.98 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.15 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.00 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.27 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.18 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.43 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 8% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 40% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 16% Completely Neutral 46% 16% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 16% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? 36% Strongly recommend retain 56% 45% Recommend retain 24% 11% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Judge Gonzales Judges* Total Retain 81% 80% 2% Neither 11% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 7% 11% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Michael A. Gonzales All District No Michael A. Judges* Evaluations of Judge Gonzales = 16 A B C D Fail Grade Gonzales Judge Gonzales in terms of overall performance as a judge. 6% 13% 0% 0% 0% 81% 3.33 3.46 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112266)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Sample Size = 126 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 18% 6% 1% 2% 0% 3.59 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 17% 4% 1% 2% 0% 3.63 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 16% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 20% 4% 0% 5% 2% 3.52 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.57 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 6% 2% 3% 0% 3.56 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 74% 14% 2% 0% 7% 2% 3.51 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 11% 2% 2% 1% 29% 3.62 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 67% 18% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.55 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.56 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 11% 6% 2% 1% 0% 3.70 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 14% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.77 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 5% 1% 0% 0% 3.76 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.74 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 64% 22% 7% 2% 3% 2% 3.44 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 16% 3% 0% 2% 2% 3.70 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 14% 6% 4% 0% 9% 3.58 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 74% 15% 5% 2% 0% 5% 3.69 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 24% 6% 3% 2% 1% 3.45 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 75% 13% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3.59 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 69% 12% 2% 2% 4% 11% 3.59 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 15% 2% 2% 4% 5% 3.57 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.58 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.60 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All District Gonzales Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 12% 8% Competely neutral 80% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.06 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% 8% Competely neutral 73% 82% Lenient sentencing total 13% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.22 0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 67% 75% Recommend retain 19% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 4% Total Retain 86% 88% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 7% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.60 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.57 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.59 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.63 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.55 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.52 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.56 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.56 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.51 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.62 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.55 or her case. 3.70 3.74 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.70 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.77 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.76 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.57 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.44 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.70 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.58 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.69 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.45 little wasted time. 3.61 3.58 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.59 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.59 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.57 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.06 Michael A. Gonzales 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.22 Michael A. Gonzales 0.01 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 14 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? 67% Strongly recommend retain 75% 19% Recommend retain 13% 7% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 6% Judge Gonzales Judges* 3% Total Retain 86% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 7% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 15 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-seven appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. 19 ## Page 23 e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, a questionnaire was sent to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Sixteen questionnaires were returned, though not all 16 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 21 ## Page 25 The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Gonzales is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding District Judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 9 0 1 0 8 100.0% Defense Attorneys 27 9 3 0 15 62.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 10 5 1 0 4 44.4% Other Attorneys Civil 49 21 10 0 18 46.2% Total Attorneys 95 35 15 0 45 56.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 25 12 3 1 9 40.9% Law Enforcement 17 7 4 0 6 46.2% Defendant 177 89 64 1 23 20.4% Civil Litigant 41 25 10 0 6 19.4% Jurors 145 60 7 4 74 53.6% Employees, including Interpreters 12 4 0 0 8 66.7% Total Non-attorneys 417 197 88 6 126 38.3% Grand Total: 512 232 103 6 171 41.8% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3105 1702 353 0 1050 38.2% Defense Attorneys 4381 2309 386 0 1686 42.2% Other Attorneys Criminal 164 88 10 0 66 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3667 1426 237 0 2004 58.4% Other Attorneys Civil 4136 1945 378 0 1813 48.2% GAL 34 11 2 0 21 65.6% Total Attorneys 15487 7481 1366 0 6640 47.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 55 28 18 0 9 24.3% Witness 5936 3024 1701 304 907 21.4% Other 58 32 13 3 10 22.2% Law Enforcement 5118 2861 1236 140 881 22.7% Defendant 17993 7871 8866 117 1139 12.5% Civil Litigant 8137 4580 1905 149 1503 24.1% Witness 122 51 34 3 34 38.6% Other 221 78 56 8 79 47.9% Jurors 17789 7033 1065 254 9437 56.4% Employees, including Interpreters 1120 450 172 21 477 50.3% Probation Officers 65 19 0 5 41 63.1% Total Non-attorneys 56614 26027 15066 1004 14517 34.9% Grand Total: 72101 33508 16432 1004 21157 38.0% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6640 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 6% 2% 1% 20% 3.44 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 26% 9% 3% 2% 12% 3.30 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 4% 3% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 10% 6% 6% 24% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 26% 11% 5% 4% 14% 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.50 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 10% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 5% 5% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3.34 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 18% 6% 3% 2% 15% 3.43 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 80% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14517 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 10% 3% 1% 2% 0% 3.73 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 11% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.66 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.68 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 11% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.69 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 71% 19% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.61 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.67 4d.Being prepared for cases. 80% 10% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.73 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 13% 4% 1% 3% 7% 3.63 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 68% 9% 2% 1% 2% 17% 3.67 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 11% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges* DK/ Sample Size = 16 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014. 23% 16% 2% 1% 0% 58% Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 35 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 38 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Randall C. Arp ............... A B C D F Barbara L. Hughes ........ A B C D F Jack W. Berryhill............ A B C D F Thomas K. Kane ........... A B C D F Margie L. Enquist .......... A B C D F Thomas L. Kennedy ...... A B C D F Ann Gail Meinster .......... A B C D F Michael P. McHenry ...... A B C D F Lily W. Oeffler ................ A B C D F David Prince .................. A B C D F Tamara S. Russell ......... A B C D F Gregory R. Werner........ A B C D F Chistopher C. Zenisek ... A B C D F 5th Judicial District 2nd Judicial District Frederick W. Gannett .... A B C D F Martin F. Egelhoff .......... A B C D F Russell H. Granger ....... A B C D F J. Eric Elliff ..................... A B C D F Mark D. Thompson ....... A B C D F A. Bruce Jones .............. A B C D F 6th Judicial District Elizabeth Leith ............... A B C D F Suzanne F. Carlson ...... A B C D F John W. Madden, IV ...... A B C D F 7th Judicial District Robert L. McGahey, Jr. . A B C D F Mary Deganhart ............ A B C D F Sheila A. Rappaport ...... A B C D F Charles R. Greenacre ... A B C D F Elizabeth A. Starrs ........ A B C D F J. Steven Patrick ........... A B C D F Michael J. Vallejos ........ A B C D F James W. Schum .......... A B C D F 4th Judicial District 8th Judicial District William B. Bain .............. A B C D F Julie Kunce Field........... A B C D F Edward S. Colt, II .......... A B C D F Thomas R. French ........ A B C D F Jann P. DuBois.............. A B C D F Stephen E. Howard ....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 39 9th Judicial District No Grade 20th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Denise Lynch................. A B C D F Ingrid S. Bakke .............. A B C D F 10th Judicial District Maria E. Berkenkotter ... A B C D F William D. Alexander ..... A B C D F Patrick D. Butler ............ A B C D F Victor I. Reyes ............... A B C D F Judith L. LaBuda ........... A B C D F Andrew R. Macdonald .. A B C D F 11th Judicial District David M. Thorson .......... A B C D F 21st Judicial District David A. Bottger ............ A B C D F 12th Judicial District Thomas M. Deister........ A B C D F Michael A. Gonzales ..... A B C D F Brian J. Flynn ................ A B C D F 13th Judicial District 22nd Judicial District Kevin L. Hoyer ............... A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F Douglas R. Vannoy ....... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Shelley A. Hill ................ A B C D F 17th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr. A B C D F sheet for comments you would like to make John E. Popovich, Jr. .... A B C D F about any of these district judges. Ted C. Tow, III ............... A B C D F Mark D. Warner ............. A B C D F Francis C. Wasserman .. A B C D F Craig R. Welling ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Michelle A. Amico .......... A B C D F F. Stephen Collins ......... A B C D F Paul A. King................... A B C D F Charles M. Pratt ............ A B C D F Gerald J. Rafferty .......... A B C D F Theresa M. Slade .......... A B C D F Elizabeth B. Volz ........... A B C D F John L. Wheeler ............ A B C D F Vincent R. White ........... A B C D F 19th Judicial District Timothy G. Kerns .......... A B C D F Marcelo Kopcow ............ A B C D F 2 ## Page 40 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 41 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4
- 2010 cycle
- 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Michael A. Gonzales Alamosa County Courthouse 702 4th St., District Court Alamosa, CO 81101 Dear Judge Gonzales: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Michael A. Gonzales September 24, 2009 Page 2 Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Sample Size = 16 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 25% 38% 6% 0% 0% 31% 3.27 3.48 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.62 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 44% 38% 12% 0% 0% 6% 3.33 3.36 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 44% 50% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.38 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 38% 44% 6% 0% 6% 6% 3.13 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 31% 50% 6% 6% 0% 6% 3.13 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 6% 19% 0% 6% 31% 3.00 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 33% 33% 8% 0% 0% 25% 3.33 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 23% 31% 0% 0% 0% 46% 3.43 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.47 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 44% 44% 12% 0% 0% 0% 3.31 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 81% 12% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 38% 56% 0% 6% 0% 0% 3.25 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 38% 50% 6% 0% 0% 6% 3.33 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.41 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 31% 0% 6% 0% 6% 3.47 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 38% 44% 0% 6% 0% 12% 3.29 3.23 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 31% 31% 6% 0% 0% 31% 3.36 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.37 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.35 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Gonzales Judges Sample Size = 16 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 89% 30% Completely neutral 0% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 0% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 85% 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 8% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Total Retain 93% 86% Total Not Retain 8% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 73% 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 13% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Total Retain 80% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 13% 5% Total Not Retain 7% 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.35 Overall Average Grade 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.40 3.40 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.27 case after trial. 3.48 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.62 proceedings. 3.40 3.33 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.38 3.35 3.15 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.13 relevant facts. 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.13 3.15 3.00 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.33 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.20 3.47 Q3. Overall Communication 3.36 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.43 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.23 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges Jud 2g00e9 I nMteriimc Jhudaiceiall P eArfo.r mGanocen Szuravelyes 4 ## Page 8 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.41 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.31 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.40 3.75 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.25 in a neutral manner. 3.20 3.33 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.23 3.37 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.47 releveant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.29 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.23 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.36 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 11% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 89% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 0% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 85% Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 8% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Cnty Judge Gonzales Judges 8% Total Retain 93% 86% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 8% 14% 7% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 73% Strongly recommend retain in office 66% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Cnty 13% Judge Gonzales Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 80% 81% Undecided 13% 5% 7% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 7% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3388)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Sample Size = 38 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 58% 18% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.22 3.52 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 66% 16% 11% 0% 8% 0% 3.32 3.53 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 61% 21% 11% 3% 5% 0% 3.29 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 53% 26% 3% 11% 8% 0% 3.05 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.22 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 61% 13% 11% 8% 5% 3% 3.19 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 58% 16% 11% 8% 8% 0% 3.08 3.43 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 8% 8% 5% 5% 24% 3.18 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 58% 13% 11% 5% 5% 8% 3.23 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.17 3.48 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 58% 16% 18% 3% 5% 0% 3.18 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 61% 18% 16% 3% 3% 0% 3.32 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 62% 16% 16% 5% 0% 0% 3.35 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.28 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 55% 21% 11% 5% 8% 0% 3.11 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 16% 14% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 16% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.27 3.50 4d. Being prepared for cases. 58% 16% 16% 5% 3% 3% 3.24 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 61% 11% 21% 3% 5% 0% 3.18 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.23 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 16% 5% 5% 11% 0% 3.14 3.41 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 8% 5% 11% 5% 3.08 3.43 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 8% 13% 5% 8% 3% 3.16 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.13 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.21 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Gonzales Judges Sample Size = 38 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 29% 14% Competely neutral 61% 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.39 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 33% 16% Competely neutral 57% 73% Lenient sentencing total 11% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.57 0.15 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 11% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 9% 7% Total Retain 80% 90% Total Not Retain 20% 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 5% 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 11% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 8% 6% Total Retain 75% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 9% Total Not Retain 19% 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.21 Overall Average Grade 3.49 3.22 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.22 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.52 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.32 3.53 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.29 manner. 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.05 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.39 3.17 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.48 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.19 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.08 case without bias. 3.43 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.18 themselves. 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.23 or her case. 3.52 3.28 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.61 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.18 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.32 understand. 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.35 can hear what's being said. 3.65 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges Jud 20g09e In Mterimic Jhudaiciael lP eArfo.rm Gancoe nSuzrvaeyles 10 ## Page 14 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.23 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.11 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.36 proceedings. 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.27 3.50 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.24 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.18 little wasted time. 3.43 3.13 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.14 3.41 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.08 possible outside pressure. 3.43 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.16 relevant facts. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.39 Michael A. Gonzales 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.57 Michael A. Gonzales 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Gonzales Judges Total Retain 80% 90% 11% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 20% 10% 3% 9% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 70% Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 5% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Gonzales Judges Total Retain 75% 82% 11% Undecided 5% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 19% 9% 8% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning county judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in County Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Gonzales. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table on page below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non- attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Gonzales is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal Defense Attorneys 6 1 0 0 5 83.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 11 7 0 0 4 36.4% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 14 7 0 0 7 50.0% Total Attorneys 31 15 0 0 16 51.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Other 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Defendant 277 170 82 1 24 12.3% Civil Litigant 53 32 16 1 4 10.8% Jurors 16 5 2 0 9 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 347 207 100 2 38 15.4% Grand Total: 378 222 100 2 54 19.4% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total Other 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all county judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all county judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all county judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2909 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 6% 2% 1% 24% 3.48 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 25% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 4% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 26% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 18% 11% 7% 4% 27% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 24% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 29% 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 19% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 20% 11% 7% 4% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 26% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 24% 10% 5% 3% 10% 3.23 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2909 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 97% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 11374 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.47 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 18% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 15% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.43 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.42 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.48 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 17% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.61 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 16% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 60% 22% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 17% 6% 2% 2% 13% 3.50 4d.Being prepared for cases. 67% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.54 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.41 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 57% 13% 5% 3% 4% 18% 3.43 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 16% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 11374 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 16% Competely neutral 73% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.15 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Michael A. Gonzales Alamosa County Courthouse 702 4th St., District Court Alamosa, CO 81101 Dear Judge Gonzales: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, and second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Michael A. Gonzales March 30, 2010 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Michael A. Gonzales an overall average grade1 of 3.39, and non-attorneys assigned Judge Gonzales an overall average grade of 3.17 resulting in a combined grade of 3.28. The average combined grade for all county judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.41. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Gonzales Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.28 3.39 3.17 Sample Size - 20 64 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Gonzales’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Gonzales Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Score2 Average Score Average Score 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.42 3.26 3.32 3.29 3.52 3.22 Sample Size - - - 0 4 16 0 8 56 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 County judges who were appointed between 2007 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 47%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.82, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Gonzales’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county Judge Gonzales Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.38 3.22 Percent of Sample 22% 78% Sample Size 14 50 County Judge Average 3.82 3.26 Table 3 judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Gonzales’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2200)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Sample Size = 20 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 30% 35% 5% 0% 0% 30% 3.36 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.65 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 40% 35% 15% 0% 0% 10% 3.28 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 45% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.45 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.44 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 40% 45% 5% 0% 5% 5% 3.21 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 35% 50% 5% 5% 0% 5% 3.21 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 5% 15% 5% 5% 30% 3.00 3.04 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 33% 40% 7% 0% 0% 20% 3.33 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.19 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 60% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 24% 35% 0% 0% 0% 41% 3.40 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.50 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 55% 35% 10% 0% 0% 0% 3.45 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 80% 15% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 45% 45% 0% 5% 5% 0% 3.20 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 40% 50% 5% 0% 0% 5% 3.37 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.44 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 60% 30% 0% 5% 0% 5% 3.53 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 40% 40% 0% 5% 0% 15% 3.35 3.26 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 35% 30% 5% 0% 0% 30% 3.43 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.44 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.39 3.31 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Gonzales Judges Sample Size = 20 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 17% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 83% 29% Completely neutral 0% 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 12% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 94% 87% Total Not Retain 6% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 11% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 11% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 85% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 11% 5% Total Not Retain 5% 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.39 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.44 3.42 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.36 case after trial. 3.49 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.65 proceedings. 3.43 3.28 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.45 3.37 3.19 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.21 relevant facts. 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.21 3.13 3.00 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.33 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.24 3.50 Q3. Overall Communication 3.38 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.60 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.40 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges Jud 2g01e0 JMudiciical hPearfoerml aAnce. SGurvoeyn Rzepaorltes 6 ## Page 10 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.44 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.45 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.42 3.75 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.38 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.20 in a neutral manner. 3.23 3.37 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.44 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.53 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.35 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.43 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.37 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 17% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 83% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 0% Completely Neutral 48% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 82% Strongly recommend retain 71% 12% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Judge Gonzales Judges 6% Total Retain 94% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 6% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain 67% 11% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Cnty 11% Judge Gonzales Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 85% 82% Undecided or DK 11% 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 5% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell AA.. GGoonnzzaalleess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6644)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Sample Size = 64 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gonzales Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 59% 19% 8% 8% 5% 2% 3.22 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 64% 14% 9% 6% 6% 0% 3.23 3.55 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 60% 22% 6% 3% 8% 0% 3.24 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 56% 23% 2% 6% 13% 0% 3.05 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.19 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 64% 13% 9% 6% 6% 2% 3.24 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 56% 19% 6% 8% 11% 0% 3.02 3.46 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 13% 5% 3% 11% 19% 3.06 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 59% 14% 9% 5% 8% 5% 3.18 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.13 3.51 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 59% 14% 17% 3% 6% 0% 3.17 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 63% 19% 13% 3% 3% 0% 3.34 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 62% 16% 11% 5% 6% 0% 3.22 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.24 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 56% 20% 11% 3% 9% 0% 3.11 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 14% 11% 5% 3% 2% 3.35 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 17% 10% 6% 5% 8% 3.19 3.52 4d. Being prepared for cases. 58% 16% 17% 5% 3% 2% 3.22 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 59% 16% 14% 3% 8% 0% 3.16 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.21 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 14% 5% 5% 14% 0% 3.05 3.44 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 59% 14% 6% 5% 13% 3% 3.06 3.47 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 61% 13% 9% 8% 8% 2% 3.13 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.08 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.17 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael A. Gonzales Michael A. All County Gonzales Judges Sample Size = 64 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 28% 14% Competely neutral 63% 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.45 0.14 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 30% 13% Competely neutral 61% 74% Lenient sentencing total 8% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.67 0.11 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 13% 6% Total Retain 78% 91% Total Not Retain 22% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 6% Total Retain 74% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 9% Total Not Retain 20% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.17 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.19 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.22 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.23 3.55 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.24 manner. 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.05 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.13 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.51 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.24 heard. 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.02 case without bias. 3.46 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.06 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.18 or her case. 3.55 3.24 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.17 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.60 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.34 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.22 can hear what's being said. 3.66 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges Jud 20g10e J uMdiciiacl Pherafoermla nAce. S Gurvoeyn Rezpaortles 12 ## Page 16 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.21 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.51 3.11 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.35 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.19 3.52 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.22 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.16 little wasted time. 3.45 3.08 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.45 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.05 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.06 possible outside pressure. 3.47 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.13 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.45 Michael A. Gonzales 0.14 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.67 Michael A. Gonzales 0.11 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges Judge Michael A. Gonzales Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gonzales be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 71% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Gonzales Judges Total Retain 78% 91% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 22% 9% 3% 13% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 7% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Gonzales Judges Total Retain 74% 83% 8% Undecided 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 20% 9% 12% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael A. Gonzales All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14 ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Gonzales is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all county judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Judge Michael A. Gonzales Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3 3 0 0 0 0.0% Defense Attorneys 28 16 0 0 12 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 12 7 0 0 5 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 12 9 0 0 3 25.0% Total Attorneys 55 35 0 0 20 36.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Other 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Law Enforcement 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Defendant 385 242 107 2 34 12.2% Civil Litigant 76 46 20 1 9 16.1% Witness 14 8 3 0 3 27.3% Jurors 33 15 3 1 14 46.7% Employees 4 3 0 1 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 517 315 133 5 64 16.7% Grand Total: 572 350 133 5 84 19.1% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1275 876 39 2 358 29.0% Defense Attorneys 5161 3380 119 9 1653 32.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 24 10 6 0 8 44.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1440 812 73 2 553 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 660 431 36 1 192 30.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role 26 9 6 0 11 55.0% Total Attorneys 8586 5518 279 14 2775 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 4952 2734 1069 81 1068 28.1% Defendant 26197 14235 9044 287 2631 15.6% Victim 238 163 68 4 3 1.8% Witness 2737 1497 815 111 314 17.3% Other 1604 976 436 17 175 15.2% Civil Litigant 7606 4092 1996 111 1407 25.6% Witness 413 247 78 7 81 24.7% Other 104 74 17 0 13 14.9% Total Non-attorneys 43851 24018 13523 618 5692 18.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 10350 4609 590 201 4950 51.8% Employees 277 119 36 29 93 43.9% Total Other 10627 4728 626 230 5043 50.4% Total 63064 34264 14428 862 13510 27.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. None of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2775 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 6% 2% 1% 25% 3.49 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 11% 5% 2% 4% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 23% 12% 6% 4% 9% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 19% 10% 6% 4% 23% 3.04 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 23% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 28% 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 18% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 20% 10% 7% 4% 1% 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 3% 6% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 24% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 10% 3.26 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2775 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% Completely neutral 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 10735 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.50 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 4% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.55 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.46 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.51 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 15% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 61% 22% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3.39 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.52 4d.Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.56 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 17% 6% 3% 3% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 4% 2% 4% 18% 3.47 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 10735 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.14 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.11 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 91% Total Not Retain 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
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
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026