Russell H. Granger

Evaluation history

• 2020 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 78.9% yes

  35,074 yes · 9,397 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) agrees that District Judge Russell Holton Granger MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS based on the following judicial performance criteria: Integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Granger presides primarily in Eagle County.  His District Court caseload is 65% civil cases, 27% criminal cases, and 8% juvenile cases.  His legal rulings are clear, analytical, and well-reasoned.  Judge Granger reports that he does a lot of reading of cases and journals to stay current in his legal knowledge.  Judge Granger excels in the management of his docket.  He is very proficient at managing complex trials, yet his philosophy is to encourage attorneys and their clients to resolve their issues without a trial if possible.  Judge Granger noted that he took over a large part of a civil docket of a judge who retired in late 2018 and worked diligently to bring a backlog of motions up to date in those cases. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Granger from attorneys and non-attorneys, his self-evaluation, legal rulings, observed Judge Granger in the courtroom, and received input from the District Attorney and the Public Defender.  In the 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report, 41 individuals completed the surveys, 39 of them attorneys.  Eighty-six percent of the attorneys found that Judge Granger meets performance standards, higher than the 83% rating for all district judges.  Judge Granger scores slightly higher than the average for all district judges on case management.  Survey respondents commented on Judge Granger’s thorough preparation for hearings, and his knowledge of the law.  The Commission noted that Judge Granger scored lower than the average for all other district judges in fairness, however there were multiple survey respondents who praised him for his fairness. Judge Granger noted that fairness is important to him in his work on the bench.  He stated that he recognizes that people in court need to be heard and understood, and he works to provide that for each person who appears before him.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 74.9% yes

  19,071 yes · 6,382 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Russell H. Granger BE RETAINED. After attending Colorado Christian University and Western Bible College, Judge Granger went on to receive his law degree from the Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, California in 1991. After law school until 1998, Judge Granger was in private practice in Georgetown, Colorado. He was also the Georgetown town attorney.  In 1998, Judge Granger was appointed to the County Court Bench in Clear Creek County.  In 2006, Judge Granger was appointed to the District Court bench sitting in Clear Creek, Eagle and Lake Counties. Currently Judge Granger sits in Eagle County where he has a docket composed of civil, criminal, domestic relations, and juvenile matters. Because of his recent move to Eagle County he currently is not involved in any community service activities but is searching for those opportunities. He previously volunteered as a member of his local fire department and was a member of the National Ski Patrol. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Granger from attorneys and non-attorneys, his written self-evaluation, a sampling of Judge Granger’s legal rulings, observed Judge Granger in the courtroom, and received input from the District Attorney, the Public Defender, law enforcement, and other general members of the public.  One hundred three attorneys were surveyed regarding Judge Granger. Of those 103 attorneys, 80% recommended retaining Judge Granger, 3% made no recommendation and 18% recommended Judge Granger not be retained. Of the 173 non-attorneys who were surveyed 78% recommend retention, 11% had no recommendation, and 11% recommended that Judge Granger not be retained. (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.)  Appellate Judges gave Judge Granger an average score of 2.8 compared to the 3.46 average score of all other district judges evaluated statewide during this retention cycle.  Judge Granger’s overall score was 3.36 on a 4 point scale. The Commission was highly impressed with Judge Granger’s excellent legal abilities.  Judge Granger’s legal rulings are intelligent, analytical, and well thought out. Judge Granger also excels in the management of his own docket. His orders are all timely and he is currently up to date in his workload.  Judge Granger has also worked hard to improve his courtroom communication skills. He is perceived as evenly tempered and does a good job with allowing everyone in the court room to have an opportunity to speak and feel heard. Judge Granger values the concepts of “access to justice” and those principles are reflected in how he handles his courtroom.  Judge Granger’s strong docket control has, however, led to a perception that he is inflexible and prosecution oriented. Judge Granger’s analytical personality also makes him less approachable than some other members of the judiciary.   Judge Granger could benefit from self-reflection as to how he is perceived by litigants and attorneys alike, to address perceptions regarding his neutrality and to create a more approachable courtroom experience.
• 2008 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 78.7% yes

  23,792 yes · 6,428 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Russell H. Granger BE RETAINED. Judge Granger received his law degree from the Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, California. Judge Granger was engaged in private practice in Georgetown and as the Georgetown town attorney prior to his appointment in 1998 as the County Court judge for Clear Creek County. He was appointed to the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District in 2006. Judge Granger hears cases primarily in Clear Creek, Eagle and Lake counties. Judge Granger contributes time lecturing in the areas of contracts, property, tort and criminal law; and is active as a volunteer member of the local fire department and National Ski Patrol. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Granger from attorneys and non-attorneys, as well as a written self evaluation completed by Judge Granger. A personal interview of Judge Granger was conducted by the Commission, and members of the Commission observed Judge Granger in the courtroom during several proceedings. This is Judge Granger’s first review as a district judge. The qualities of integrity, fairness and consistency that he exhibited as a county judge have transferred well, as he is seen as a district judge who takes his job very seriously, and who treats all courtroom participants with respect and fairness. He receives very high marks for his professional, balanced courtroom demeanor, and is held in high regard by the Commission, attorneys and non-attorneys that appear before him. Overall, he successfully manages a very heavy caseload, with few criticisms regarding delay balanced against few others that he rushes the procedure. In order to improve his performance, Judge Granger continues to work on preparing concise, well-reasoned written rulings, expediting his caseload, and balancing his quest for procedural perfection alongside empathy with those appearing before him. Questionnaires received by the Commission from both attorneys and non-attorneys that have appeared in his courtroom uniformly rate Judge Granger high overall, and above average in the areas of fairness, demeanor, diligence and application of the law. Seventy-seven percent of attorneys responding strongly recommend retention of Judge Granger, with 77% of responding non-attorneys sharing this strong recommendation.
• 2004 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 77.6% yes

  3,654 yes · 1,055 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2004 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2004 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Russell H. Granger BE RETAINED. Judge Russell H. Granger was appointed to the bench as a County Judge in the Fifth Judicial District in 1998. Previous to this appointment he practiced law in a general private practice in Georgetown, Colorado as well as serving as the Town Attorney for Georgetown. Judge Granger also contributes considerable time lecturing law students in areas of contracts, property, tort, and criminal law. Judge Granger is a well-rounded individual involved in the community through the local fire department and National Ski Patrol. He is well liked in the community. Judge Granger received outstanding marks in the performance survey by attorneys in most areas including application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor and diligence. In fact, 100% of all attorneys surveyed recommended that Judge Granger be retained with comments ranging from his knowledge of the law, his fairness to all parties concerned and his thoughtful and dignified demeanor on the bench. The non-attorney survey respondents awarded slightly lower scores in all areas but resulted with a 79% recommendation for retention. Comments included his busy schedule, not starting court on time and being regarded as aloof by some. Judge Russell H. Granger is an outstanding County Judge who loves what he is doing in the Fifth Judicial District as he was born and raised in the mountain region of Colorado. The Commission sees a bright future for him and supports his goal of becoming more proficient at Juvenile Law and Procedure. The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously voted to recommend retention of Judge Russell H. Granger.
• 2000 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards(Do Not Retain)
  Retention Year: 2000 Recommendation: Retain The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Russell H. Granger BE RETAINED. Judge Granger was appointed to the Clear Creek County Court bench in 1998. He serves as a part-time judge in Clear Creek County. Judge Granger handles misdemeanor criminal, traffic and civil cases. The responses from both non-attorneys and attorneys who have observed or worked with Judge Granger indicated that he is qualified to continue his service as county judge. Virtually all respondents indicated that he has the ability to deal effectively with the legal and practical issues which confront him in that position and the demeanor to satisfy those with whom he deals that they are treated in a just manner in his court. The responses from both non-attorneys and attorneys establish that he significantly exceeds the favorable responses associated with other county judges in the state in every area. Similarly, the written responses received by the Commission confirmed that Judge Granger not only is determined to administer justice in a manner which is effective, fair and efficient, but that he succeeds in that goal. The responses to the question of whether Judge Granger should be retained in office, and the comparison of responses to the same question on a state-wide basis, were as follows: Non-Attorneys (68 responding): Retain - 84%; Do not retain - 13%; No opinion - 3% (Statewide, 76% of non-attorneys recommended retention of county judges under consideration for retention and 14% recommended against retention) Attorneys (14 responding): Retain - 86%; Do not retain - 7%; No opinion - 7% (Statewide, 78% of attorneys recommended retention of county judges under consideration for retention, and 16% recommended against retention). The recommendation of the Commission is based upon Judge Granger's ability to effectively deal with the administration of justice, his determination and ability to deal with issues which challenge the administration of justice, and the consensus of the community, both attorneys and non-attorneys, that Judge Granger has exceeded the standards which are generally recognized and achieved across the state.

Surveys & reports

• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Russell H. Granger 2017 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 . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Russell H. Granger, 56 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 39 agreed they had worked with Judge Granger enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 39 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4.00 4.00 3.60 3.55 3.69 3.63 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Russell H. Granger Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.60 3.55 3.69 4.00 3.63 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 88% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Russell H. Granger Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 91% 88% 100% 100% 100% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Russell H. Granger Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.61 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.39 3.67 4.00 3.61 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.52 3.81 4.00 3.77 Diligence 3.40 3.72 4.00 3.66 Demeanor 3.83 3.58 4.00 3.50 Fairness N/A 3.67 4.00 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 90 0 33 37% 24% Total Non- 267 27 23 9% 39% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 12 0 3 25% 33% Other Non- 255 27 20 8% 40% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Granger, 33 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 25 agreed they had worked with Judge Granger enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 25 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Russell H. Granger be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Russell H. Granger Total Retain 88% Neither 12% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 59% 56% 60% 40% 32% 21% 20% 12% 9% 6% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Granger All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Granger on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.61 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.64 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.48 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.72 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.52 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 6 Case Management Judge Russell H. All Granger Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Granger Judges Responses: 25 Promptly issuing a decision on the 50% 33% 4% -- -- 13% 3.52 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 84% 12% -- -- 4% -- 3.72 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 52% 36% -- 4% -- 8% 3.48 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 76% 16% 4% 4% -- -- 3.64 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.61 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Granger on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.39 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.52 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.56 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.14 are similar 3.43 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.24 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.36 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Russell H. Granger All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Granger Judges Being able to identify and 56% 28% 12% 4% -- -- 3.36 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 48% 36% 12% -- 4% -- 3.24 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 25% 13% -- -- 13% 3.43 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 64% 28% 8% -- -- -- 3.56 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 56% 32% -- 4% -- 8% 3.52 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.39 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Granger on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.52 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.26 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.79 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 8 Communications Judge Russell H. Granger Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Granger Number of Responses: 24 Judges Making sure all participants 76% 20% -- -- -- 4% 3.79 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 48% 24% 16% 4% -- 8% 3.26 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.52 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Granger on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.84 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.80 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.84 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Russell H. Granger Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Granger Judges Number of Responses: 25 Giving proceedings a sense of 84% 16% -- -- -- -- 3.84 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 84% 12% 4% -- -- -- 3.80 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 84% 16% -- -- -- -- 3.84 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Granger on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.40 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 3.57 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.35 for cases 3.36 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 10 Diligence Judge Russell H. Granger All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Granger Judges Using good judgment in application of 48% 48% -- 4% -- -- 3.40 3.20 relevant law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 48% 44% 4% 4% -- -- 3.36 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 56% 32% 4% -- -- 8% 3.57 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.40 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Granger in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 63% 60% 48% 40% 29% 25% 20% 13% 11% 8% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Granger All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Russell H. Granger, 23 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 14 agreed they had worked with Judge Granger enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 14 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of quest ions asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 16 ## Page 19 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Russell H. Granger Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 100% 80% 69% 60% 40% 16% 20% 6% 6% 3% 0% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Granger All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.58 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.55 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.58 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.67 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 12 Demeanor Judge Russell H. Granger All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 12 Granger Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 62% 23% -- 8% -- 8% 3.50 3.68 Treating participants with respect 77% 8% -- 8% -- 8% 3.67 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 77% 8% -- -- 8% 8% 3.58 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 62% 15% -- 8% -- 15% 3.55 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.58 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.67 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.60 case 3.67 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.58 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.62 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.77 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 13 Fairness Judge Russell H. Granger All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Granger Number of Responses: 13 Judges Giving participants an 85% 8% 8% -- -- -- 3.77 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 85% 8% -- -- 8% -- 3.62 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 77% 8% -- -- 8% 8% 3.58 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 69% 15% 8% -- -- 8% 3.67 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.67 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.81 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 3.83 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.75 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 14 Communications Judge Russell H. Granger All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 12 Granger Judges Making sure all participants understand the 69% 15% -- -- -- 15% 3.82 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 69% 23% -- -- -- 8% 3.75 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 77% 15% -- -- -- 8% 3.83 3.78 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.81 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.72 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 3.64 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.82 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.64 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 15 Diligence Judge Russell H. Granger All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 12 Granger Judges Beginning court on time 69% 23% -- -- -- 8% 3.75 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 69% 8% -- 8% -- 15% 3.64 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 77% 8% -- 8% -- 8% 3.67 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 69% 15% -- -- -- 15% 3.82 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 69% 8% -- 8% -- 15% 3.64 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.72 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.67 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.69 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 3.58 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Granger Table 16 Application of Law Judge Russell H. Granger All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Granger Number of Responses: 13 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 77% 8% -- 8% -- 8% 3.67 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 77% 8% -- -- 8% 8% 3.58 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 85% 8% -- 8% -- -- 3.69 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.67 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Granger is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Granger is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 85% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 8% 4% 6% 8% 5% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Granger All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Granger are. If you feel Judge Granger generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 79% 80% 67% 60% 40% 20% 8% 4% 8% 7% 8% 5% 8% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Granger All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 25
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.4

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    86%

    57 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    50%

    2 respondents
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Russell H. Granger 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 Granger, 41 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 41 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Granger All District Judges Judge Granger All District Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 86% 83% 80% 60% 50% 50% 40% 20% 11% 12% 5% 6% 3% 3% 0% Judge Granger All District Judges Judge Granger 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 Granger Granger Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 83% 50% 92% standards No, does not meet 11% 12% 0% 6% performance standards No opinion 3% 5% 50% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 2.8 Fairness 3.7 Judge Granger All District Judges Judge All District Granger Judges Case 3.5 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.2 3.3 Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 2.8 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 57 33% 68% 39 Non-Attorneys 2 67% 100% 2 In addition to the responses above, Judge Granger 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 Russell H. Granger 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Granger Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Granger Attorneys 3.5 Judge Granger Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Granger Judges Granger Granger Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.0 31 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.0 41 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.0 36 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.6 4.0 38 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Granger Overall 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Granger Attorneys 3.2 Judge Granger Non-Attorneys 2.0 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Granger Judges Granger Granger Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.0 39 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 36 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 29 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 37 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 35 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Granger Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Granger Attorneys 3.4 Judge Granger Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Granger Judges Granger Granger Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.0 37 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 36 reasoned Using language that everyone 2.5 3.7 N/A 2.5 2 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Granger Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Granger Attorneys 3.5 Judge Granger Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Granger Judges Granger Granger Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.0 37 Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.0 38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.0 38 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.5 3.6 N/A 2.5 2 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Granger Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Granger Attorneys 3.3 Judge Granger Non-Attorneys 3.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 11 ## Page 12 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Granger Judges Granger Granger Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 36 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 33 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 35 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 2 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.5 3.6 N/A 2.5 2 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 1 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Granger Score 2.8 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Granger Attorneys Judge Granger Non-Attorneys 2.8 Judge Granger District Judge Granger Judge Granger Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.0 3.7 N/A 3.0 2 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.0 3.6 N/A 3.0 2 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 2.5 3.7 N/A 2.5 2 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Granger 8 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Granger enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Granger Score 3.4 Judge Granger District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.4 3.6 8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Granger, 41 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 41 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 Russell H. Granger 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 Russell H. Granger 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 Russell H. Granger 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, 8 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Granger 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 Russell H. Granger 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 171 57 0 39 68% Staff 3 2 0 2 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 3 2 0 2 100% Total Respondents 174 59 0 41 69% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Russell H. Granger 19
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee RRuusssseellll HH.. GGrraannggeerr 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Russell H. Granger Clear Creek County Courthouse P.O. Box 367 5th & Argentine Georgetown, CO 80444 Dear Judge Granger: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim 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, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by 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 two 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 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 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Russell H. Granger May 6, 2011 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 bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, district judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.30, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.20, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.41, Judge Russell H. Granger’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.31. Judge Granger Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.31 3.20 3.41 Sample Size - 95 231 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Granger from 20051 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Granger’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Granger Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2005 3.52 3.59 9 3.44 43 2007 3.24 3.31 19 3.16 45 2008 3.10 2.69 4 3.51 27 2009 3.31 3.23 26 3.39 76 2010 3.37 3.09 37 3.65 40 Overall 3.31 3.20 95 3.41 231 Table 2 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 district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 66%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for district judges was 1 There were no surveys conducted based on cases that closed in 2006. See methodology section for more details. 1 ## Page 5 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 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 Granger’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2005 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges. Judge Granger Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All District Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2005 3.65 10 23% 3.36 33 77% 3.84 3.25 2007 3.75 14 31% 2.93 31 69% 3.86 3.31 2008 3.86 9 33% 3.35 18 67% 3.87 3.30 2009 3.79 24 32% 3.21 52 68% 3.87 3.26 2010 3.70 20 50% 3.58 20 50% 3.88 3.28 All Yrs. 3.75 77 33% 3.25 154 67% 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Granger’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRuuseel HH.. GGrraannggeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 9955)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Sample Size = 95 A B C D Fail DK/NA Granger Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 51% 18% 10% 4% 0% 17% 3.39 3.40 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 23% 4% 7% 2% 1% 3.37 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 22% 15% 5% 2% 13% 3.12 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 21% 12% 12% 2% 2% 3.10 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.25 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 20% 8% 9% 2% 2% 3.29 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 48% 21% 6% 6% 9% 11% 3.05 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 22% 8% 7% 8% 21% 2.90 3.02 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 42% 14% 2% 2% 9% 30% 3.10 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.09 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 59% 26% 6% 4% 1% 3% 3.42 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 45% 20% 14% 9% 6% 6% 2.95 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.19 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 9% 1% 2% 1% 3.50 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 68% 15% 9% 5% 3% 0% 3.39 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 23% 6% 2% 9% 2% 3.22 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 20% 4% 8% 8% 6% 3.13 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.31 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 27% 3% 11% 6% 2% 3.07 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 29% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.19 3.33 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 46% 18% 8% 4% 5% 18% 3.17 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.14 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.20 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Granger Judges Sample Size = 95 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 19% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 26% Completely neutral 33% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 19% 4% 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 74% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Total Retain 84% 88% Total Not Retain 15% 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 72% 69% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Total Retain 82% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 4% Total Not Retain 15% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.20 Overall Average Grade 3.30 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.25 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.39 case after trial. 3.40 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.37 proceedings. 3.41 3.12 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.10 3.26 3.09 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.29 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.05 3.14 2.90 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.10 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.14 3.19 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.42 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.95 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger All District Judges Judge Russell H. Granger 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.31 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.50 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.49 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.22 in a neutral manner. 3.29 3.13 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.14 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.07 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.19 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.17 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 19% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 29% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 33% Completely Neutral 47% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 19% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Russell H. Granger All District Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain 72% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Judge Granger Judges 4% Total Retain 84% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 15% 12% 6% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 72% Strongly recommend retain 69% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist 3% Judge Granger Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 82% 84% Undecided or DK 3% 4% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 15% 12% 6% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Russell H. Granger All District Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRuuseel HH.. GGrraannggeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 223311)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Sample Size = 231 A B C D Fail DK/NA Granger Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 18% 5% 2% 4% 0% 3.48 3.70 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 17% 4% 2% 4% 0% 3.53 3.72 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 73% 16% 3% 1% 7% 0% 3.45 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 59% 24% 4% 1% 9% 3% 3.25 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.43 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 70% 15% 6% 0% 8% 1% 3.40 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 3% 2% 9% 3% 3.35 3.65 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 47% 13% 1% 0% 7% 31% 3.34 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 66% 16% 4% 1% 8% 5% 3.39 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.37 3.67 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 71% 16% 7% 2% 3% 0% 3.49 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 70% 21% 4% 2% 3% 0% 3.55 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 16% 2% 3% 1% 0% 3.68 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.57 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 54% 25% 11% 3% 4% 2% 3.25 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 71% 21% 3% 3% 2% 0% 3.56 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 19% 6% 4% 7% 13% 3.21 3.64 4d. Being prepared for cases. 62% 18% 5% 2% 6% 7% 3.37 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 57% 27% 8% 2% 5% 0% 3.30 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.34 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 19% 6% 0% 4% 4% 3.48 3.60 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 11% 4% 3% 6% 15% 3.40 3.64 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 15% 4% 3% 7% 8% 3.38 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.42 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.41 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Granger Judges Sample Size = 231 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 17% 8% Competely neutral 78% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.39 0.07 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 20% 8% Competely neutral 72% 82% Lenient sentencing total 8% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.49 0.04 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 79% 89% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 4% Total Retain 89% 95% Total Not Retain 10% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 73% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 4% Total Retain 82% 90% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.41 Overall Average Grade 3.67 3.43 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.48 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.70 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.53 3.72 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.45 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.25 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.61 3.37 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.67 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.40 heard. 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.35 case without bias. 3.65 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.34 themselves. 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.39 or her case. 3.69 3.57 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.74 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.49 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.72 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.55 understand. 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.68 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger All District Judges Judge Russell H. Granger 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.34 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.25 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.56 proceedings. 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.21 3.64 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.37 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.30 little wasted time. 3.58 3.42 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.48 3.60 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.40 possible outside pressure. 3.64 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.38 relevant facts. 3.63 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.39 Russell H. Granger 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.49 Russell H. Granger 0.04 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Russell H. Granger All District Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Russell H. Granger All District Judges Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Granger Judges Total Retain 89% 95% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 10% 6% 2% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 73% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 9% All Dist Undecided 5% Judge Granger Judges Total Retain 82% 90% 3% Undecided 9% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 9% 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Russell H. Granger All District Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding 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 courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. 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. 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, and going forward, 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 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, 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 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 survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim 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 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 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 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 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 district judges 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. 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 district 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 (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. 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. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 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. 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. Since in 2010, 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 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 survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 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 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 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. 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 district judges 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 all district 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 21 ## Page 25 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. 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 Granger 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 district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Russell H. Granger 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 17 9 0 0 8 47.1% Defense Attorneys 38 18 2 0 18 50.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 5 3 0 0 2 40.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 120 58 4 0 58 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 36 26 1 0 9 25.7% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 2 1 1 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 218 115 8 0 95 45.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 73 32 22 6 13 25.5% Law Enforcement 32 7 5 1 19 70.4% Defendant 226 106 102 0 18 14.5% Civil Litigant 468 306 92 4 66 17.6% Witness 3 1 1 0 1 50.0% Other 5 4 1 0 0 0.0% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 217 116 69 1 31 20.9% Jurors 153 71 4 1 77 51.7% Employees 7 0 1 0 6 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 1184 643 297 13 231 26.0% Grand Total: 1402 758 305 13 326 29.7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 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 5963 3735 108 3 2117 36.2% Defense Attorneys 9005 5407 125 0 3473 39.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 310 260 2 1 47 15.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 9795 4329 410 17 5039 53.7% Other Attorneys Civil 6107 3564 63 4 2476 41.0% GAL 101 43 5 0 53 55.2% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 193 60 22 0 111 64.9% Total Attorneys 31474 17398 735 25 13316 43.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 149 85 40 3 21 19.3% Witness 13212 6730 4190 587 1705 18.9% Other 5595 3441 1430 55 667 16.0% Law Enforcement 13854 7651 3233 295 2674 25.2% Defendant 40047 19046 17527 241 3226 14.3% Civil Litigant 23266 13519 5107 291 4337 23.9% Witness 618 306 139 15 158 33.0% Other 679 317 150 18 194 36.7% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 2763 1447 1003 4 309 17.6% Jurors 48708 18523 2771 544 26770 58.3% Employees 905 283 121 66 435 55.5% Total Non-attorneys 149796 71348 35711 2119 40496 35.5% Grand Total: 181270 88746 36446 2144 53812 37.2% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 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. Neither 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. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 13316 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.40 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 5% 2% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 47% 24% 11% 6% 4% 8% 3.14 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 20% 10% 6% 4% 21% 3.02 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 23% 9% 4% 3% 26% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 24% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 12% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 7% 2% 2% 1% 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 20% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.33 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 19% 7% 3% 2% 14% 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 13316 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 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 72% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 40496 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.72 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.65 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.66 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.67 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.64 4d.Being prepared for cases. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.71 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 1% 3% 18% 3.64 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 12% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 40496 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 6% 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 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.04 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## 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
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee RRuusssseellll HH.. GGrraannggeerr 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Russell H. Granger Clear Creek County Courthouse P.O. Box 367 Georgetown, CO 80444 Dear Judge Granger: 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 Russell H. Granger received an overall combined average grade of 3.36 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.22, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.49, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge Granger Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.36 3.22 3.49 Sample Size - 103 173 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 Granger’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 Granger Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 3.10 2.69 4 3.51 27 2009 3.31 3.23 26 3.39 76 2010 3.37 3.09 37 3.65 40 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.48 3.43 36 3.53 30 Overall 3.36 3.22 103 3.49 173 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 Granger’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 Granger Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.77 57 33% 3.37 116 67% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRuuseel HH.. GGrraannggeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110033)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Sample Size = 103 A B C D Fail DK/NA Granger Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 58% 15% 10% 2% 0% 16% 3.52 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 66% 21% 4% 6% 3% 1% 3.42 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 52% 22% 14% 4% 2% 7% 3.26 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 24% 9% 12% 1% 0% 3.20 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.35 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 22% 8% 7% 4% 2% 3.24 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 55% 21% 5% 6% 10% 3% 3.09 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 29% 24% 8% 5% 10% 25% 2.75 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 14% 0% 3% 10% 24% 3.14 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.06 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 58% 26% 7% 4% 1% 4% 3.42 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 21% 14% 6% 4% 5% 3.11 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.27 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 23% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.48 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 18% 6% 6% 4% 0% 3.37 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 53% 30% 4% 3% 8% 2% 3.20 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 21% 5% 7% 7% 8% 3.14 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 49% 28% 7% 8% 8% 1% 3.02 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 47% 35% 7% 5% 5% 2% 3.15 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 17% 6% 4% 7% 16% 3.19 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.12 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.22 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 Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Granger Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 18% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 32% 27% Completely neutral 36% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 14% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 65% 56% Recommend retain 15% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 3% 8% Recommend not retain 12% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 80% 80% Neither 3% 8% Total Not Retain 18% 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.22 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.35 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.52 case after trial. 3.44 3.42 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.26 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.20 3.28 3.06 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.24 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.09 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 2.75 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 3.14 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.27 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.42 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.11 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Russell H. Granger 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.30 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.48 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.37 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.20 neutral manner. 3.28 3.14 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.12 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.02 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.15 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.19 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. 18% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 32% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 36% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 14% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Russell H. Granger 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 Russell H. Granger Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained or not retained in office? 65% Strongly recommend retain 56% 15% Recommend retain 24% 3% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Judge Granger Judges* Total Retain 80% 80% 12% Neither 3% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 18% 11% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Russell H. Granger 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 RRuuseel HH.. GGrraannggeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Russell H. Granger All District No Russell H. Judges* Evaluations of Judge Granger = 16 A B C D Fail Grade Granger Judge Granger in terms of overall performance as a judge. 6% 19% 0% 6% 0% 69% 2.80 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 RRuuseel HH.. GGrraannggeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 117733)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Sample Size = 173 A B C D Fail DK/NA Granger Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 15% 6% 1% 3% 0% 3.56 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 9% 5% 1% 5% 0% 3.61 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 75% 12% 4% 1% 8% 0% 3.44 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 62% 22% 6% 2% 8% 1% 3.30 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 76% 13% 3% 1% 6% 0% 3.51 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 8% 2% 2% 8% 1% 3.48 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 12% 1% 1% 6% 28% 3.46 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 14% 2% 2% 6% 2% 3.48 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.48 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 14% 7% 2% 3% 0% 3.53 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 72% 21% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3.59 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 13% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3.74 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.62 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 60% 23% 11% 2% 2% 2% 3.42 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 72% 19% 4% 3% 2% 1% 3.57 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 16% 7% 4% 5% 12% 3.29 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 70% 13% 6% 1% 5% 5% 3.48 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 25% 7% 1% 4% 0% 3.43 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.44 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 72% 12% 6% 1% 5% 5% 3.53 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 9% 4% 4% 5% 11% 3.44 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 10% 4% 2% 7% 5% 3.48 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 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 Russell H. Granger Russell H. All District Granger Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% 8% Competely neutral 80% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.25 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 18% 8% Competely neutral 72% 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.32 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 64% 75% Recommend retain 14% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 11% 6% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 4% Total Retain 78% 88% Neither 11% 6% Total Not Retain 11% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.49 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.48 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.56 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.61 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.44 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.30 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.48 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.51 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.48 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.46 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.48 or her case. 3.70 3.62 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.53 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.59 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.74 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Russell H. Granger 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Russell H. Granger Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.44 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.42 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.57 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.29 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.48 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.43 little wasted time. 3.61 3.48 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.53 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.44 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.48 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.25 Russell H. Granger 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 0.32 Russell H. Granger 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. Russell H. Granger 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 Russell H. Granger Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained or not retained in office? 64% Strongly recommend retain 75% 14% Recommend retain 13% 11% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 6% Judge Granger Judges* 4% Total Retain 78% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 11% 6% Total Not Retain 11% 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Russell H. Granger 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 Granger 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 Russell H. Granger 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 22 10 3 0 9 47.4% Defense Attorneys 25 10 3 0 12 54.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 125 58 7 0 60 50.8% Other Attorneys Civil 58 34 2 0 22 39.3% Total Attorneys 231 113 15 0 103 47.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 77 33 24 6 14 26.4% Law Enforcement 63 18 17 3 25 54.3% Defendant 176 58 99 1 18 23.4% Civil Litigant 378 221 105 4 48 17.6% Witness 3 1 1 0 1 50.0% Other 3 2 1 0 0 0.0% Jurors 105 44 3 1 57 55.9% Employees, including Interpreters 22 8 4 0 10 55.6% Total Non-attorneys 827 385 254 15 173 30.2% Grand Total: 1058 498 269 15 276 35.0% 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
• 2008 cycle
  • 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State off Colorado LLogo COOMMISSIOON ON JUUDICIALL PERFORRMANCEE RRuuusssseellll HH.. GGrrrraannggeerrrr 22008 Juudicial PPerformmance Suurvey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Russell H. Granger Clear Creek County Courthouse 5th & Argentine Georgetown, CO. 80444 Dear Judge Granger: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2008 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 57,000 people statewide who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 12,400 people responded—3,084 to the attorney survey and 9,317 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: • Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. • Appellate Judges & Comments: New to the 2008 Judicial Performance Evaluation is a survey of Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices regarding the overall performance of district judges. • Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. • Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 TThe Honorabble Russell HH. Granger AApril, 30 20088 PPage 2 If you havve any questtions about tthe methodoology and hoow the surveey was coonducted, pllease feel freee to contactt me at 303-4443-5300 ext 1, and for anny other questions youu might have about the ssurvey pleasse call the Exxecutive Dirrector of the CColorado Juddicial Performmance Progrram, Jane Hoowell, at 3033-837-3665. Beest regards, Paaul A. Talmeey Prresident ennc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3322)) ## Page 5 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 33..55 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Q1. Overall Case 33.44 Management 3.4 3.4 Q2. Overall App & 3.4 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.7 3.5 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAvveerraaggee GGrraaddee Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 6 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Case Management 3.4 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.7 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 33.33 1b. Beginning court on time 3.6 3.5 3.3 1c. Allotting appropriate amount 3.4 of time for cases 3.4 3.5 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.5 3.2 1e. [Civil only] Assisting parties to 3.0 reach agreement 3.0 3.5 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.0 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 motions 3.3 3.3 1h. Promptly issuing a decision 3.5 on the case after trial 3.5 3.3 1i. Setting reasonable schedules 3.3 for cases 33.44 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 7 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.4 LLaaww 3.3 3.4 2a. Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 and arguments 3.3 3.4 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.1 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.2 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.2 2d. Willing to reconsider error in 3.0 ffaacctt oorr llaaww 2.9 3.5 2e. Having knowledge of relevant 3.4 substantive law 3.3 3.5 2f. Having knowledge of rules of 3.5 pprroocceedduurree aanndd eevviiddeennccee 3.4 3.5 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 3.3 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the 3.3 circumstances are similar 3.3 3.0 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.4 2j. Making decisions without fear 3.5 ooff bbeeiinngg aappppeeaalleedd 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 8 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.7 33.77 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.7 3.6 3b. Making sure all participants 3.6 understand the proceedings 3.6 3.7 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 2.8 3d. Providing written communications that are 3.3 clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 9 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Demeanor 3.5 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.7 4a. Giving proceedings a sense 3.5 of dignity 3.5 3.6 4b. Treating everyone involved 3.4 politely 33.44 3.6 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.6 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 3.4 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.4 presence on the bench 3.4 3.6 4f. Being consistent in [his/her] 3.4 behavior 3.5 33.44 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.4 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.4 3.7 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.4 44ii. CCoonnssiisstteennttllyy aappppllyyiinngg llaawwss 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.6 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.7 communications 3.7 3.9 44kk. TTrreeaattiinngg pprroo ssee ppaarrttiieess ffaaiirrllyy 33.77 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 10 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Diligence 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 3.5 55aa. MMaakkiinngg ttoouugghh ddeecciissiioonnss wwhheenn 3.4 necessary 3.4 3.4 5b. Using good judgment in apppplication of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.4 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared 3.4 for [[his/her]] cases 3.4 3.4 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 complicated and time consuming 33.55 3.4 5e. Providing prompt access to 3.5 the court in emergency matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 11 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Granger is toward the defense or prosecution? Russell H. Grangger 1.1 All District Judges 0.4 All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 12 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Granger's sentences? Russell H. Granger 2.0 All District Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.3 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 13 Russell H. Granger AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Retention Recommendation 110000%% 90% 80% 77%77%77% 75% 7744%%7744%% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 13% 13%13% 12% 10% 10% 9% 9% 10% 6%6% 6%6% 4%4% 4%4% 4%4% 3% 3% 3% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 14 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 59% 57% B 17% 17% 18% C 3% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 13% 19% 21% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 15 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 45% 66% 62% B 35% 23% 25% C 16% 5% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 3% 3% 2% Average 3.3 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 16 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 45% 55% 56% B 35% 27% 28% C 13% 9% 8% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 3% 5% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 17 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 58% 58% B 23% 27% 28% C 10% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 10% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 18 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 30% 23% 23% B 19% 17% 17% C 4% 10% 8% D 7% 4% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 41% 44% 47% Average 3.2 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 19 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 64% 66% B 29% 22% 22% C 3% 8% 7% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 20 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 27% 45% 44% B 30% 23% 21% C 10% 9% 8% D 7% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 1% No Grade 27% 19% 24% Average 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 21 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 48% 48% B 27% 17% 16% C 3% 5% 4% D 7% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 20% 27% 29% Average 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 22 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 53% 54% B 23% 26% 26% C 16% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 7% 8% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 23 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 65% 54% 54% B 23% 25% 25% C 0% 9% 9% D 13% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 5% 5% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 24 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 57% 56% B 26% 25% 25% C 3% 9% 9% D 6% 3% 4% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 25 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 19% 32% 27% B 23% 18% 16% C 8% 7% 6% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 46% 38% 47% Average 3.1 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 26 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 32% 27% 27% B 21% 18% 18% C 11% 9% 9% D 4% 4% 5% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 32% 37% 38% Average 3.2 3.0 2.9 Letter Grade B B B- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 27 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 55% 54% B 29% 28% 28% C 6% 9% 9% D 3% 3% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 3% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 28 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 63% 60% B 29% 23% 24% C 6% 7% 8% D 3% 2% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 3% 4% Average 3.5 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 29 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 63% 58% 58% B 27% 24% 24% C 3% 9% 8% D 7% 3% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 30 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Granger on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 41% 28% 36% B 18% 16% 18% C 5% 5% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 1% No Grade 32% 48% 37% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 31 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 54% 54% B 23% 20% 20% C 10% 7% 7% D 3% 2% 3% Fail 10% 2% 3% No Grade 3% 15% 14% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 32 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 55% 55% B 19% 19% 20% C 16% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 13% 17% 16% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 33 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 75% 76% B 26% 18% 18% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 34 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 71% 71% B 29% 20% 21% C 3% 5% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 35 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Using understandable language?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 75% 76% B 29% 20% 19% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 36 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 3d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 46% 46% B 0% 21% 21% C 29% 7% 7% D 14% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 14% 20% 21% Average 2.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23 ## Page 37 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 69% 69% B 16% 19% 20% C 6% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 24 ## Page 38 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 68% 69% B 16% 16% 17% C 10% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25 ## Page 39 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 55% 55% B 20% 22% 22% C 7% 10% 10% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 5% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26 ## Page 40 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 67% 68% B 10% 17% 18% C 13% 8% 7% D 0% 4% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27 ## Page 41 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 65% 64% B 13% 19% 20% C 13% 8% 8% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 6% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 28 ## Page 42 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 64% 64% B 13% 20% 21% C 6% 7% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 29 ## Page 43 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 65% 64% B 10% 18% 20% C 10% 7% 7% D 6% 3% 4% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 3% 2% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30 ## Page 44 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 81% 70% 70% B 13% 18% 19% C 6% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31 ## Page 45 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 59% 59% B 16% 21% 21% C 0% 8% 8% D 13% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 6% 6% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32 ## Page 46 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 67% 64% B 7% 10% 12% C 0% 2% 3% D 7% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 33% 19% 19% Average 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33 ## Page 47 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 60% 47% 51% B 10% 9% 11% C 0% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 30% 40% 33% Average 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34 ## Page 48 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 55% 53% B 29% 21% 22% C 3% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 10% 12% 13% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35 ## Page 49 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 53% 54% B 23% 26% 26% C 0% 10% 9% D 13% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36 ## Page 50 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 65% 58% 56% B 19% 24% 24% C 10% 7% 8% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 6% 9% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37 ## Page 51 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 48% 56% 54% B 23% 18% 18% C 6% 5% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 19% 17% 19% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38 ## Page 52 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 48% 40% 39% B 10% 13% 14% C 10% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 29% 40% 40% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39 ## Page 53 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Granger is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 8% 2% 3% ⇑ 4 0% 3% 4% 3 17% 6% 7% 2 8% 9% 10% 1 8% 13% 14% 0 Neutral 50% 54% 53% -1 8% 6% 4% -2 0% 3% 2% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 0% Average 1.1 0.4 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40 ## Page 54 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Granger are? Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 15% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 15% 3% 3% 3 0% 4% 4% 2 31% 7% 8% 1 8% 8% 10% 0 Appropriate 23% 56% 60% -1 8% 5% 4% -2 0% 5% 3% -3 0% 5% 3% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 2% 1% Average 2.0 0.1 0.3 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 41 ## Page 55 Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 77% 77% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 13% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 10% 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 3% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 42 ## Page 56 AAppppeellllaattee JJuuddggee SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2200)) ## Page 57 Russell H. Granger Appellate Survey Overall Performance of Judge Granger Judge All District Granger Judges A 15% 28% B 10% 14% C 0% 3% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 75% 55% Average 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 58 NNoonn--AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7766)) ## Page 59 Russell H. Granger NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.4 Overall Average 3.6 3.6 3.4 QQ11. OOvveerraallll DDeemmeeaannoorr 33.66 3.6 3.3 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.6 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.7 3.3 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.6 3.6 3.4 Q5. Overall Application of 3.6 Law 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAverage GGradde Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 60 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.4 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.6 3.6 33.55 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.7 sense of dignity 3.6 3.4 1b. Treating participants politely 3.7 and with respect 3.6 3.5 1c. Conducting [his/her] 3.6 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.6 3.3 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.6 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 61 Russell H. Granger NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Fairness 3.3 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.6 3.3 2a. Giving participants an 3.7 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.3 2b. Treating those involved with 3.6 the case without bias 3.5 3.4 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.6 represent themselves 3.5 3.4 2d. Giving each side enough 3.7 time to present his or her case 33.66 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 62 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.6 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.7 3.5 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.7 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.6 3b. Using language that 3.7 everyone can understand 3.7 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.7 hear what's being said 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 63 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.3 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.6 3.6 3.0 44a. BBegiinniing courtt on ttiime 33.55 3.4 3.6 4b. Maintaining appropriate 33..77 conttroll over proceeddiings 3.7 3.2 4c. Setting reasonable 3.6 sscchheedduulleess ffoorr ccaasseess 3.6 3.3 4d. Being prepared for [his/her] 3.7 cases 3.6 3.2 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.5 little wasted time 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 64 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.6 3.5 3.4 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 3.5 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.6 outside pressure 3.5 3.3 5c. Being able to identify and 3.6 analyze relevant facts 33.55 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 65 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Granger is toward the defense or prosecution? Russell H. Granger 0.4 All District Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 66 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Granger's sentences? Russell H. Grangger 0.5 All District Judges 0.0 All Trial Judges 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 67 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 87% 85% 81% 80% 78% 77% 70% 64% 60% 5500%% 40% 30% 20% 16% 13% 11% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7%7% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2%2% 2%2% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Granger All District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 68 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 63% 76% 73% B 28% 16% 18% C 3% 3% 4% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 69 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 79% 76% B 30% 13% 14% C 5% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 3% 2% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.4 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 70 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 77% 74% B 22% 13% 14% C 3% 4% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 71 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 54% 71% 69% B 28% 17% 17% C 5% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 7% 3% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.3 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 72 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 77% 75% B 21% 14% 14% C 9% 4% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 7% 2% 3% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.3 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 73 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 75% 73% B 28% 14% 14% C 5% 3% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 7% 3% 4% No Grade 7% 3% 3% Average 3.3 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 74 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 47% 49% B 16% 8% 9% C 1% 2% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 5% 2% 3% No Grade 35% 39% 35% Average 3.4 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 75 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 56% 75% 72% B 19% 14% 14% C 7% 3% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 3% No Grade 13% 5% 5% Average 3.4 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 76 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 78% 76% B 17% 13% 14% C 8% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 77 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 78% 76% B 22% 16% 16% C 8% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 78 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 79% 78% B 20% 14% 14% C 3% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 79 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 61% 61% B 32% 24% 24% C 12% 7% 8% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.0 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 80 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 78% 77% B 22% 15% 15% C 5% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 81 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 49% 64% 62% B 24% 17% 17% C 7% 5% 5% D 4% 1% 1% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 12% 13% Average 3.2 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 82 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 51% 73% 71% B 29% 14% 14% C 4% 3% 4% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 7% 8% Average 3.3 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 83 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 67% 66% B 28% 21% 20% C 11% 6% 7% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 84 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 67% 65% B 32% 16% 16% C 8% 4% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 3% No Grade 5% 9% 9% Average 3.4 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 85 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 61% 59% B 15% 11% 12% C 7% 3% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 21% 20% 20% Average 3.5 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 86 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 68% 66% B 24% 13% 14% C 7% 3% 4% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 3% 3% 4% No Grade 13% 10% 10% Average 3.3 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 87 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Granger is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 3% 1% 2% ⇑ 4 3% 1% 1% 3 3% 2% 2% 2 3% 2% 2% 1 13% 4% 5% 0 Neutral 73% 84% 82% -1 3% 2% 3% -2 3% 2% 1% -3 0% 1% 1% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 1% Average 0.4 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 88 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Granger are? Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 3% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 3% 1% 2% 3 3% 2% 2% 2 7% 2% 2% 1 3% 3% 3% 0 Appropriate 73% 78% 76% -1 7% 5% 5% -2 0% 4% 4% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 1% Average 0.5 0.0 0.0 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 89 Russell H. Granger Non-Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Granger Judges 2006 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 77% 87% 85% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 13% 7% 8% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 3% 2% 2% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 7% 4% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 90 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 91 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The databases of names and addresses of the people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom were primarily provided by the Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council and the Denver County Courts. These three sources provided name and address data in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Starting in the second quarter of 2007, the data was provided quarterly. Where there were low sample counts, this data was supplemented by contacting district court administrators for additional sample of particular types of potential respondents. The data was then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected— quarterly starting in 2007. Depending on the available number of names and the count of already received surveys for a particular judge, either all or a random sample of names were drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had appeared. Survey: Each person whose name was drawn 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 would be sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent follow-up postcard. If the person did not respond after the follow-up postcard, a second questionnaire and letter were sent and in some instances a second follow-up postcard was sent after the second letter and questionnaire. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney responses, telephone interviews were conducted with attorneys who had not responded to the mailed questionnaires. Over 900 interviews were completed by telephone. 1 ## Page 92 Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2008 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney respondents these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The estimated response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. The true response rates are likely considerably higher than shown because of the relatively high percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed in court. 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 similar table showing the response counts and estimated cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 93 Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 841 306 93 2 440 58.8% Defense Attorneys 1,082 341 102 2 637 65.0% Other Attorneys Crmnl 809 418 27 3 361 46.2% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1,395 312 171 13 899 73.4% Other Attorneys Civil 598 280 53 2 263 48.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role 852 289 77 2 484 62.5% Total Attorneys 5,577 1,946 523 24 3,084 61.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 8,170 5,431 1,417 34 1,288 19.1% Defendant 13,787 9,091 3,737 25 934 9.3% Victim 295 222 63 2 8 3.4% Witness 1,886 1,342 453 5 86 6.0% Other 5,396 3,532 1,301 43 520 12.7% Civil Litigant 6,552 4,390 1,109 21 1,032 19.0% Witness 46 31 5 0 10 24.4% Other 59 29 15 0 15 34.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 5,065 2,598 1,843 12 612 19.0% Total Non-attorneys 41,256 26,666 9,943 142 4,505 14.4% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 10,214 4,940 460 22 4,792 49.1% Total Other 10,240 4,946 460 22 4,812 49.2% Total 57,073 33,558 10,926 188 12,401 26.9% 3 ## Page 94 Results: The results of the Survey are in three main sections: Attorney respondents, Appellate Judge respondents and Non-attorney respondents. Within the Attorney and Non-attorney section are subsections of graphs displaying average grades for each section of the questionnaire and each question and tables showing the percentage distribution of grades. The Appellate Judge section is new this year, and shows the percentage distribution of the grades given by the appellate judges on overall performance. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district judges, and all trial judges for which 2008 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.67 to 3.99 B—= 2.67 to 2.99 C—= 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.66 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for district judges surveyed in 2008, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2008 survey. 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. 4 ## Page 95 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. 5 ## Page 96 Russell H. Granger Responses by Type Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3 1 0 0 2 66.7% Defense Attorneys 5 0 1 0 4 100.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 4 2 0 0 2 50.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 27 9 3 0 15 62.5% Other Attorneys Civil 4 3 1 0 0 0.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 21 9 3 1 8 44.4% Total Attorneys 64 24 8 1 31 42.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 123 76 45 0 2 2.6% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Litigant 221 164 33 1 23 12.2% Other 4 3 1 0 0 0.0% Non-attorneys, Unknown Role Type 217 116 69 1 31 20.9% Total Non-attorneys 566 360 148 2 56 86.1% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 44 33 1 0 10 23.3% Total Others 70 39 1 0 30 56.5% Grand Total: 700 423 157 3 117 21.5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 97 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 98 Commission on Judicial Performance 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ _ JUDGE [NAME] 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Last Name]? _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, _ please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have _ 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/NS). _ DK 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge [Last h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name]? i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ DK _ 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 99 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward b. Makings sure all participants understand the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 completely unbiased, circle “0.” c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution d. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Last Name] in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? DK ________________________________________________________ 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even ___________________________________________________________ when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] {Question 3d is asked only regarding district judges.} 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 100 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance 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 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 JUDGE[NAME] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Last Name]? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please understanding for those who appear place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 101 DK Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Last Name] c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Last Name] ? e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ 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 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or _ cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, _ circle “0.” _ _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward _ Defense Neutral Prosecution _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 _ 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next [Last Name] ? question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands _ down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” _ Sentences Appropriate Sentences _ Too Light Sentences Too Harsh _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Back Page
• 2004 cycle
  • 2004 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2004 Judicial Performance Survey TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee RRuusssseellll HH.. GGrraannggeerr ## Page 2 March 22, 2004 The Honorable Russell H. Granger County Judge, 5th Judicial District P.O. Box 367 5th & Argentine Georgetown, Co. 80444 Dear Judge Granger: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2004 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 35,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 10,000 people responded—3,683 to the attorney survey and 6,330 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e as required by the recent rule changes) , each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Russell H. Granger March 22, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.4 3.3 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.3 3.6 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.2 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 5 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.3 3.7 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.5 during trial 3.5 3.4 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.4 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.4 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.3 1e. Assisting parties to reach 3.1 agreement 3 3.8 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.4 3.6 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 motions 3.2 3.7 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.4 3.6 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 6 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.6 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.2 3.7 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.2 3.8 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 3.4 2c. Issuing written findings of 3 fact and law 3.1 3.8 2d. Willing to reconsider error 2.9 in fact or law 2.9 3.7 2e. Having knowledge of 3.2 relevant substantive law 3.2 3.7 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.3 of procedure and evidence 3.3 3.7 2g. Being able to identify and 3.3 analyze relevant facts 3.3 2h. Issuing consistent 3.7 sentences when the 3.3 circumstances are similar 3.2 2i. Willing to make decision 3.5 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.3 3.6 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 7 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.6 3a. Speaking clearly 3.5 3.5 3.8 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.4 3c. Using understandable 3.6 language 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 8 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.8 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.7 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.4 3.6 4c. Having empathy with the 3.2 parties involved 3.2 3.7 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.4 3.5 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.3 3.6 4f. Being consistent in his/her 3.4 behavior 3.3 4g. Conducting his/her 3.5 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.3 3.7 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.6 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.3 and rules 3.3 3.6 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.5 communications 3.6 3.6 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.4 fairly 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 9 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.5 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.2 3.4 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.3 3.5 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.2 3.6 5c. Doing the necessary "homework" and being 3.3 prepared for his/her cases 3.2 5d. Being willing to handle 3.7 cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicatedand time consuming 3.3 3.8 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.4 matters 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 10 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Granger is toward the defense or prosecution? Russell H. 0.8 Granger All County 0.8 Judges All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 11 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Granger's sentences? Russell H. 0.7 Granger All County 0.5 Judges All Trial Judges 0.4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 12 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 81% 81% 80% 74% 73% 70% 69% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 19% 19% 20% 17% 16% 16% 15% 10% 6%6% 6%6% 5%5% 4%4% 4%4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Granger Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 13 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 51% 51% B 28% 22% 24% C 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 11% 19% 17% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 14 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 53% 54% B 39% 30% 29% C 10% 9% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 4% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 15 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 50% 50% 49% B 33% 31% 30% C 11% 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 16 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 50% 52% 50% B 33% 31% 30% C 6% 9% 10% D 6% 3% 4% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 6% 5% 5% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 17 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 33% 21% 25% B 17% 16% 18% C 17% 8% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 33% 51% 41% Average 3.3 3.1 3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 18 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 72% 59% 58% B 22% 27% 27% C 8% 8% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 6% 4% 3% Average 3.8 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 19 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 41% 39% B 28% 21% 24% C 6% 8% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 11% 27% 21% Average 3.6 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 20 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 47% 44% B 11% 20% 21% C 6% 6% 7% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 17% 25% 24% Average 3.7 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 21 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 50% 47% B 22% 29% 30% C 6% 9% 10% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 11% 9% 8% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 22 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 49% 49% B 28% 27% 27% C 11% 10% D 5% 5% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average 3.7 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 23 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 51% 51% B 18% 27% 27% C 10% 10% D 4% 5% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 12% 6% 5% Average 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 24 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 29% 19% 27% B 18% 11% 17% C 6% 8% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 47% 57% 42% Average 3.4 3 3.1 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 25 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 27% 26% B 19% 20% C 6% 11% 11% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 39% 35% 34% Average 3.8 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade A- B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 26 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 47% 46% B 28% 30% 31% C 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 6% 5% Average 3.7 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 27 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 52% 52% B 33% 28% 29% C 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 28 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 51% 51% B 33% 28% 28% C 9% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 5% Average 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 29 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 44% 38% 27% B 17% 23% 17% C 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 39% 28% 46% Average 3.7 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 30 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 47% 47% B 17% 23% 23% C 11% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 17% 15% 17% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 31 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 49% 48% B 6% 23% 22% C 6% 7% 7% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 22% 17% 18% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 32 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 89% 70% 67% B 6% 21% 23% C 6% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 33 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 66% 64% B 28% 21% 23% C 6% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 34 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 83% 69% 67% B 17% 21% 24% C 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 35 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 78% 64% 63% B 22% 24% 23% C 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 23 ## Page 36 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 78% 61% 63% B 17% 20% 20% C 6% 9% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 24 ## Page 37 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 72% 51% 51% B 11% 24% 24% C 17% 11% 11% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% Average 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 25 ## Page 38 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 78% 62% 62% B 17% 21% 21% C 6% 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 26 ## Page 39 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 57% 58% B 28% 23% 23% C 11% 9% 9% D 5% 4% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 27 ## Page 40 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being consistent in his/her behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 58% 58% B 33% 22% 23% C 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 6% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 28 ## Page 41 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 57% 59% B 28% 23% 23% C 11% 9% 9% D 5% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 29 ## Page 42 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 61% 62% B 33% 24% 23% C 8% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 30 ## Page 43 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 54% 53% B 33% 24% 24% C 6% 10% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 6% 6% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 31 ## Page 44 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 55% 56% B 11% 19% 17% C 11% 4% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 11% 20% 20% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 32 ## Page 45 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 72% 51% 45% B 11% 18% 15% C 11% 5% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 6% 22% 33% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 33 ## Page 46 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 44% 45% 47% B 28% 26% 25% C 11% 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 17% 15% 14% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 34 ## Page 47 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 48% 48% B 39% 28% 28% C 6% 11% 11% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 6% 5% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 35 ## Page 48 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for his/her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 47% 47% B 11% 27% 27% C 11% 10% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 17% 11% 9% Average 3.6 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 36 ## Page 49 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicatedand time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 50% 48% 47% B 11% 22% 22% C 6% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 33% 17% 17% Average 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 37 ## Page 50 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 38% 37% B 17% 16% 16% C 5% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 28% 37% 37% Average 3.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 38 ## Page 51 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Granger is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 4% 3% 4 3% 3% 3 13% 6% 6% 2 13% 13% 12% 1 19% 18% 16% 56% 49% 49% -1 4% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 1% -4 1% 1% -5 0% 1% Average 0.8 0.8 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 39 ## Page 52 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Granger are? Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 2% 4 7% 3% 2% 3 7% 5% 5% 2 7% 9% 9% 1 20% 13% 12% 53% 59% 58% -1 7% 4% 5% -2 2% 2% -3 2% 2% -4 0% 1% -5 0% 1% Average 0.7 0.5 0.4 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 40 ## Page 53 Judge Russell H. Granger Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 81% 73% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 19% 17% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 41 ## Page 54 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.2 Overall Average 3.3 3.3 3.2 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.3 3.3 3.2 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.4 Q3. Overall 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.2 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.2 Q5. Overall Application 3.2 of Law 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 55 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.2 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.2 3.3 3.1 1a. Giving proceedings a 3.3 sense of dignity 3.4 3.3 1b. Treating participants 3.3 politely and with respect 3.4 3.2 1c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 3.2 manner 3.3 3.1 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.1 understanding 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 56 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.2 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.2 2a. Giving participants an 3.3 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.1 2b. Treating those involved 3.2 with the case without bias 3.2 3.3 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.2 represent themselves 3.3 3.2 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.3 case 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Russell H. Granger All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 57 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.4 Q3. Overall Communications 3.4 3.5 3.4 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.4 proceedings 3.4 3.3 3b. Using language that 3.4 everyone can understand 3.5 3.4 3c. Speaking clearly so 3.5 everyone can hear 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 58 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.2 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 2.9 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.2 3.4 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.2 4c. Setting reasonable 3.3 schedules for cases 3.3 3.3 4d. Being prepared for his or 3.3 her cases 3.4 3.2 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.3 little wasted time 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 59 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.2 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.2 3.2 3.2 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.2 3.2 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.2 outside pressure 3.2 3.1 5c. Being able to identify and 3.2 analyze relevant facts 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Russell H. Granger Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 60 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Granger is toward the defense or prosecution? Russell H. 0.8 Granger All County 0.2 Judges All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 61 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Granger's sentences? Russell H. 0.6 Granger All County 0 Judges All Trial Judges -0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 62 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 80% 74% 74% 72% 69% 70% 67% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 16% 15% 11%11% 11%11% 10%10% 10% 10%10% 9% 10% 6% 6% 5%5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Granger Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 63 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 50% 58% 60% B 27% 23% 23% C 6% 9% 8% D 9% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.1 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 64 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 66% 61% 63% B 13% 19% 19% C 1% 9% 8% D 10% 5% 4% Fail 6% 4% 4% No Grade 4% 3% 2% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 65 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 59% 61% B 17% 19% 18% C 4% 9% 8% D 1% 5% 4% Fail 11% 5% 5% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 66 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 58% 54% 56% B 16% 20% 20% C 4% 10% 9% D 7% 5% 4% Fail 10% 7% 6% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average 3.1 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 67 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 60% 60% 62% B 17% 21% 20% C 4% 7% 7% D 6% 4% 4% Fail 9% 5% 4% No Grade 4% 4% 3% Average 3.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 68 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 59% 58% 60% B 16% 19% 18% C 3% 7% 7% D 1% 5% 4% Fail 14% 7% 7% No Grade 7% 4% 4% Average 3.1 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 69 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 53% 47% 45% B 14% 15% 14% C 1% 6% 5% D 1% 4% 3% Fail 9% 6% 5% No Grade 21% 23% 29% Average 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 70 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 57% 59% B 10% 20% 19% C 3% 8% 7% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 10% 4% 4% No Grade 17% 8% 7% Average 3.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 71 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 70% 63% 64% B 10% 20% 19% C 3% 8% 8% D 10% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 72 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 63% 64% B 17% 21% 21% C 9% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.3 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 73 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 66% 66% B 16% 20% 20% C 10% 7% 7% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 3% 3% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 74 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 35% 50% 52% B 30% 25% 25% C 16% 11% 10% D 6% 4% 4% Fail 6% 5% 4% No Grade 7% 5% 5% Average 2.9 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 75 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 57% 63% 64% B 23% 22% 21% C 12% 7% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 76 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 46% 48% 51% B 22% 23% 21% C 12% 8% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 6% 3% 3% No Grade 13% 15% 14% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 77 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being prepared for his or her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 52% 56% 58% B 23% 21% 19% C 9% 8% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% 4% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 78 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 54% 53% 54% B 19% 25% 24% C 14% 10% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 7% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 5% 5% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 79 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 54% 52% 54% B 19% 20% 20% C 6% 9% 8% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 7% 6% 5% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average 3.2 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 80 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 51% 48% 50% B 15% 17% 16% C 6% 7% 7% D 3% 4% 3% Fail 9% 6% 6% No Grade 16% 18% 18% Average 3.2 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 81 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Granger on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 52% 53% 55% B 19% 19% 18% C 4% 8% 7% D 7% 4% 4% Fail 7% 6% 6% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average 3.1 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 82 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Granger is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 10% 4% 3% 4 5% 3% 2% 3 5% 2% 2% 2 2% 3% 3% 1 10% 6% 6% 64% 68% 70% -1 4% 4% -2 2% 3% 3% -3 3% 2% -4 1% 2% -5 2% 2% 2% Average 0.8 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 83 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Granger are? Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 12% 5% 4% 4 3% 2% 3 5% 3% 3% 2 2% 3% 3% 1 9% 4% 4% 56% 60% 62% -1 7% 6% 7% -2 5% 6% 6% -3 5% 5% 5% -4 2% 2% -5 3% 2% Average 0.6 0.0 -0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 84 Judge Russell H. Granger Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Granger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Granger Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 74% 72% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 5% 11% 11% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 6% 5% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 16% 11% 11% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 85 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2004. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in November 2004, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2004 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 86 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 719 394 7 69 9 60.6% Attorney For Defendant 2,219 1,040 17 218 24 52.0% Guardian ad Litem 131 79 0 10 1 65.3% Unknown Attorney Type 5,378 2,170 56 751 88 46.9% Attorney Total 8,447 3,683 80 1,048 122 49.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 3,111 916 55 672 3 37.6% Employee 1,739 976 18 224 0 64.4% Defendant 12,171 1,620 148 2,439 27 16.6% Plaintiff 3,617 881 66 500 11 28.3% Juror 4,488 1,632 117 511 15 41.0% Victim 552 83 11 101 2 18.4% Other 1,650 222 25 373 8 17.4% Non-attorney Total 27,328 6,330 440 4,820 66 28.1% Total 35,775 10,013 520 5,868 188 33.5% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2004 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 87 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2004, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2004 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 88 Judge Russell H. Granger Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 10 3 0 2 0 37.5% Attorney For Defendant 69 10 0 8 2 16.4% Guardian ad Litem 1 0 0 0 0 0.0% Unknown Attorney Type 24 5 0 3 0 23.8% Sub Total: 104 18 0 13 2 19.8% Defendant 279 40 5 64 1 18.6% Plaintiff 26 6 0 4 0 27.3% Law Enforcement 25 12 1 4 0 57.1% Employee 11 11 0 0 0 100.0% Juror Victim Other 10 1 0 2 0 12.5% Sub Total: 351 70 6 74 1 25.3% Grand Total: 455 88 6 87 3 23.9% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 89 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Attorney Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you do not 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. Case Management: A B C D F NA a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. [District only] Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Diligence: a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Continued on Back] 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 90 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge _ in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _ ? _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 91 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you do not 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 NA 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 2. Fairness: a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Diligence: a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Application of Law: 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 6. [If you were in Judge _’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Other Side ## Page 92 7. [If you were in Judge _ ’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge _ as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what would you tell your friend about Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _? _ _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated.

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

• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2004 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2000 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026