Michael K. Grinnan
Trial Court · Kit Carson · Kit Carson
Meets Standards4 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Kit Carson · Kit CarsonMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 78.6% yes2,200 yes · 598 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance agrees unanimously (8-0, with one member absent and one vacancy) that Judge Michael K. Grinnan MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Grinnan has been serving as Kit Carson County Court Judge since 2007. This is a part-time (currently 30%) position. Judge Grinnan’s County Court docket consists primarily of traffic, civil, criminal, misdemeanor, and a limited number of small claims cases. Having served in this role for approximately 15 years, Judge Grinnan exhibits confidence and comfort, with a good command of applicable law and procedure. He is mindful that his position is public-facing, and that for most members of the public, appearing in County Court may be the only chance they may have to interact with the legal system. In his interview, he spoke about his efforts to “humanize” defendants, many of whom he views as “good people who make bad decisions” (serious or violent criminal cases are not heard in County Court). Judge Grinnan has a pleasant demeanor and effective communication style that ensures all parties in a case understand the process and outcome. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Grinnan, reviewed a sampling of his written rulings, observed him in court, and reviewed comments and responses from a survey of individuals familiar with Judge Grinnan. Of those who completed the survey, only 2 attorney and 6 non-attorney respondents indicated that they had worked with Judge Grinnan enough to evaluate his performance. Judge Grinnan’s survey scores were mixed, although the Commission placed limited weight upon the survey results due to the small number of respondents. Based upon the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Grinnan demonstrates that he meets performance standards in all categories reviewed (integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and public).
- 2018 retention cycleTrial Court · Kit Carson · Kit CarsonMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 81.0% yes2,311 yes · 542 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (8-0, with two members absent) that Judge Michael K. Grinnan MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Grinnan has been the County Court Judge in Kit Carson County since January of 2007. He also serves as District Court Magistrate for the Thirteenth Judicial District (since July 2016) and City Attorney for the City of Burlington (since 2006). Because these are all part-time positions, Judge Grinnan continues to maintain a private law practice, as he has since 1996. Judge Grinnan earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Fort Lewis College in 1990 and his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Denver in 1993. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Grinnan, reviewed a sampling of his written rulings, observed him in court, and reviewed comments and responses from a survey of individuals familiar with Judge Grinnan. Of those who completed the survey, 16 attorney and 25 non-attorney respondents indicated that they had worked with him enough to evaluate his performance. When asked if Judge Grinnan meets performance standards, the responses were as follows: of attorneys, 94% said “yes” and 6% said “no”; of non-attorneys, 72% said “yes”, 16% said “no”, and 12% had “no opinion”. Judge Grinnan’s County Court docket consists of primarily of traffic, misdemeanor, and civil matters, as well as a small number of criminal and small claims matters. Overall, the Commission found that Judge Grinnan meets or exceeds performance standards. Attorneys rated Judge Grinnan higher than the statewide average for County Court judges in nearly every category except communications (case management, application and knowledge of the law, demeanor, diligence). Non-attorneys, however, rated Judge Grinnan lower than the statewide average in every category, although, for the most part, those scores were still within an acceptable range. Judge Grinnan’s lowest scores from non-attorneys were in the areas of on beginning court on time, diligence, and giving reasons for rulings. Survey comments also raised these issues. During his interview with the Commission, Judge Grinnan discussed the challenges that serving in the dual roles of both County Court Judge and District Court Magistrate has presented with respect to coordinating travel (both his own and that of traveling attorneys who also serve throughout the District) and scheduling. It is not surprising that the transition into this new role would involve some growing pains. It appears to the Commission that the Judge was proactive in identifying solutions and making adjustments as necessary to navigate this change, and that things seem to have improved. With that said, survey comments also overwhelmingly praised Judge Grinnan’s demeanor and temperament, describing him as friendly, fair, and compassionate. Judge Grinnan was also praised for his ability to deal with parties who do not have an attorney, which is a challenge for most judges. Observations confirmed those impressions. Overall, the Commission is left with the impression that Judge Grinnan is well liked by court staff, attorneys, and parties who appear in his courtroom and unanimously agrees that Judge Grinnan meets performance standards.
- 2014 retention cycleTrial Court · Kit Carson · Kit CarsonMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 76.8% yes2,159 yes · 652 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Michael K. Grinnan BE RETAINED. Judge Grinnan was appointed to the bench in January 2007 where he serves as a part time County Court Judge. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Fort Lewis College in 1990 and a Juris Doctor degree from Denver University Law School in 1993. Judge Grinnan’s legal experience includes: Burlington City Attorney, county attorney for Yuma County, deputy district attorney and a private attorney practice. He is currently an active member of the Colorado County Attorney Association. In his community, Judge Grinnan is a board member for Hide-Away at Cameron Lane, a nonprofit horseback riding program for handicapped persons where he even uses his own personal horses in the program. He is an assistant head coach for the Burlington High School Wrestling Team and also tries to find time to attend his own children’s numerous athletic events. Evaluation method used by the commission included reviews of current and interim 2013 Judicial Performance reports. These reports contained summaries of responses to survey questions and comments from attorneys and non-attorneys who had been involved in proceedings in Judge Grinnan’s court room. The non-attorneys surveyed included civil litigants, criminal defendants, jurors, witnesses, crime victims, court staff, interpreters and probation and law enforcement officers. The evaluation process also involved review of the Judge’s written self-evaluation, samples of the Judge’s transcribed oral decisions, courtroom observations by some members of the commission and an interview with the Judge. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 94% recommended retaining Judge Grinnan and 6% recommended not to retain. Of non-attorneys surveyed, 82% recommended retaining Judge Grinnan, 6% not to retain, and 12% made no recommendation. (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Evaluation averages of both attorneys and non-attorneys were slightly below the state average for all county judges eligible to stand for retention. Evaluation averages from attorneys were slightly lower than those of non-attorneys. In Judge Grinnan’s previous performance review, a concern from attorneys was that the Judge appeared to be defense orientated. The current survey results still showed a slight lean toward the defense in sentencing but there appears to be significant improvement in Judge Grinnans efforts to move toward a more neutral position. His strengths include striving to see that justice is done and he is very good at treating all parties with dignity. Weaknesses noted by attorneys focused on his ability to control the court room, but indicated that a majority of the time, this was not issue. Strengths noted by non-attorneys focused on the fact that Judge Grinnan ran a tight ship and that he used verbal examples to help defendants understand the issues. He is noted for being an outspoken, friendly and very generous person.
- 2010 retention cycleTrial Court · Kit Carson · Kit CarsonMeets Standards(Retain)Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Michael K. Grinnan BE RETAINED. Judge Grinnan is involved in community work including: Board member for Hide-a-Way at Cameron Lane, a non-profit therapeutic riding program for disabled persons; wrestling coach for Ssudents at Burlington Middle School; and served on the Thirteenth Judicial District Performance Commission before being appointed to the bench. Judge Grinnan was appointed to the bench in January 2007. He serves as a part-time Judge. Judge Grinnan’s experience includes: Burlington City Attorney; Yuma County, County Attorney; Thirteenth Judicial District, Deputy District Attorney; and a private practice attorney. He is a member of the Colorado County Attorney Association. The Commission reviewed the results of evaluations of Judge Grinnan from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written comments from both groups. Evaluation averages of both attorneys and non-attorneys were below the state average for all judges. Evaluation averages from attorneys were lower than the evaluation averages from non-attorneys. The lower attorney averages appear to emanate from interactions that were not totally satisfactory to the small sample of attorneys surveyed. One of the concerns forwarded by attorneys was that Judge Grinnan was defense oriented. Evaluation averages from non-attorneys were higher and comments were more positive. Some of Judge Grinnan’s strengths were listed as being knowledgeable, fair and sincere. The Commission also interviewed Judge Grinnan in person and considered the judge’s written self-evaluation. Judge Grinnan indicated he has gained valuable experience during his short tenure as a Judge and stated he believes his performance has been good, but that he still has much to learn. Judge Grinnan indicated that some of his previous experience may have impacted his earlier approach regarding decisions; however, he also indicated to the Commission he is aware of areas where improvement is needed. These areas include the challenges of dealing with repeat offenders and some initial leniency as a new judge. He stated he is now sentencing people more consistently and appropriately. Judge Grinnan stated he has had only two cases appealed to a higher court with one of those decisions upheld. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 50% recommended to retain, 51% not to retain and 0% expressed no opinion. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 66% recommended to retain, 21% not to retain and 13% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 76% recommended to retain and 25% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
Surveys & reports
- 2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Michael K. Grinnan 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Grinnan, 12 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 12 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 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Judge Grinnan All County Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 86% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Grinnan All County Judges Judge Grinnan All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Grinnan Grinnan Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 80% 79% standards No, does not meet 0% 14% 13% performance standards No opinion 14% 5% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.5 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.4 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Judge All County Grinnan Judges Case Management 3.6 3.5 Application and 3.5 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 13 20% 54% 7 Non-Attorneys 6 - - 5 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Grinnan received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3.8 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Grinnan County Judges Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.9 3.5 4 3.7 8 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.6 4.0 11 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.0 9 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.6 12 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3.5 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Grinnan County Judges Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.5 11 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 7 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 6 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 7 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 7 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 5 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 5 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3.6 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Grinnan County Judges Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 12 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 5 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3.7 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Grinnan County Judges Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 12 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 12 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.4 12 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 5 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3.5 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Grinnan County Judges Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 7 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 5 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 7 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3 3.5 N/A 3.0 4 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 5 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for - 3.4 N/A - 0 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 11 ## Page 12 Judge Grinnan County Judges Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 5 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Grinnan Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Grinnan Attorneys Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Grinnan County Judges Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 5 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 5 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 5 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 5 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Grinnan, 12 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 12 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 66 13 0 7 54% Staff 5 0 5 - Others 12 1 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys - 6 - 5 - Total Respondents - 19 - 12 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 17 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.4judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend50%18 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend100%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Michael K. Grinnan 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Grinnan, 8 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 8 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 Grinnan All County Judges Judge Grinnan All County Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 83% 83% 80% 60% 50% 50% 40% 20% 13% 12% 4% 6% 0% Judge Grinnan All County Judges Judge Grinnan All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Grinnan Grinnan Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 50% 83% 100% 83% standards No, does not meet 50% 13% 0% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.1 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 3.3 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Judge All County Grinnan Judges Case Management 3.1 3.4 Application and 3.5 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 3.5 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 18 20% 11% 2 Non- 7 - - 6 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Grinnan received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 2.6 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Grinnan Judges Grinnan Grinnan Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 2.7 3.5 2.5 2.8 7 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.4 3 3.5 8 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.5 2 3.3 8 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.1 3.5 3 3.2 8 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Grinnan Judges Grinnan Grinnan Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.3 3 3.7 8 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3 3.3 3 N/A 2 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.3 3 N/A 2 similar Consistently applying laws and 3 3.3 3 N/A 2 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 6 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 6 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Grinnan Judges Grinnan Grinnan Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.5 3 3.7 8 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3 3.4 3 N/A 2 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 6 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 6 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Grinnan Judges Grinnan Grinnan Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.5 3.4 3 3.7 8 Treating participants with respect 3.5 3.4 3 3.7 8 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 6 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Grinnan Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Grinnan Judges Grinnan Grinnan Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 3.3 3 N/A 2 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3 3.4 3 N/A 2 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3 3.4 3 N/A 2 for cases Beginning court on time. 3 3.5 N/A 3.0 5 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 6 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 6 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 6 Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 6 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Grinnan Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Grinnan Attorneys 3 Judge Grinnan Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Grinnan County Judge Grinnan Judge Grinnan Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 5 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 5 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 4 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 5 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.6 3.3 3 3.8 7 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.0 3.3 3 N/A 2 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Grinnan, 8 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 8 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 89 18 2 11% Staff - 4 4 - Others 62 3 2 67% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 7 6 - Total Respondents - 25 8 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 16
- 2018 cycle
- 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Michael K. Grinnan 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Michael K. Grinnan, 56 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 48 agreed they had worked with Judge Grinnan enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 48 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.94 4 3.22 3.13 3.02 3.01 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.13 3.02 3.22 3.94 3.01 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 80% 71% 68% 66% 64% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 68% 66% 71% 100% 64% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.14 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.80 3.06 3.89 2.82 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.26 3.52 4.00 3.38 Diligence 2.77 3.21 3.83 3.03 Demeanor 3.13 3.17 4.00 2.93 Fairness N/A 3.13 4.00 2.88 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 53 0 23 43% 9% Total Non- 497 41 33 7% 18% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 24 0 7 29% 14% Other Non- 473 41 26 5% 19% 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 Michael K. Grinnan 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Grinnan, 23 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Grinnan enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 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 Michael K. Grinnan 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 Michael K. Grinnan 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 Michael K. Grinnan 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Michael K. Grinnan be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Total Retain 66% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 28% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 52% 54% 40% 22% 20% 14% 14% 14% 5% 9% 7% 9% 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 Grinnan All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.39 Case Management Overall Average 3.14 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.35 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 2.72 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.24 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 6 Case Management Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Grinnan Number of Responses: 21 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 33% 19% 14% 10% -- 24% 3.00 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 48% 29% 24% -- -- -- 3.24 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 29% 24% 19% 10% 5% 14% 2.72 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 52% 29% 10% 5% -- 5% 3.35 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.14 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.13 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.80 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.62 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.81 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.19 are similar 2.94 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.76 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.86 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 21 Grinnan Judges Being able to identify and analyze 38% 29% 14% 19% -- -- 2.86 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 48% 10% 19% 19% 5% -- 2.76 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 47% 18% 18% 18% -- -- 2.94 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 48% 10% 19% 24% -- -- 2.81 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 48% 10% 19% 5% 19% -- 2.62 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.80 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.38 Communications Overall Average 3.26 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 2.94 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.45 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 8 Communications All Judge Michael K. Grinnan Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Grinnan Number of Responses: 21 Judges Making sure all participants 52% 33% 10% -- -- 5% 3.45 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 48% -- 24% 14% -- 14% 2.94 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.26 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.28 Demeanor Overall Average 3.13 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.90 3.32 Treating participants with respect 3.24 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.24 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Michael K. Grinnan Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Grinnan Number of Responses: 21 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 52% 24% 19% 5% -- -- 3.24 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 57% 24% 10% 5% 5% -- 3.24 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 52% 5% 24% 19% -- -- 2.90 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.13 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.17 Diligence Overall Average 2.77 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.26 they are complicated and time consuming 3.17 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 2.37 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 2.62 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 10 Diligence Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 21 Grinnan Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 48% 10% 14% 14% 14% -- 2.62 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 33% 14% 14% 10% 19% 10% 2.37 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 48% 14% 19% -- 5% 14% 3.17 3.26 consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.77 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Grinnan in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 52% 47% 40% 27% 24% 18% 20% 11% 6% 6% 8% 2% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Grinnan All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Michael K. Grinnan, 33 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 27 agreed they had worked with Judge Grinnan enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 27 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 Michael K. Grinnan 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the tab le refer to the number of questions ask ed in each category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 16 ## Page 19 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Total Retain 71% Neither 12% Total Not Retain 18% Figure 10 100% 80% 64% 59% 60% 40% 17% 20% 12% 12% 12% 7% 6% 9% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Grinnan All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.17 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.35 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.22 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.00 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.19 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.26 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 12 Demeanor Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Grinnan Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 67% 7% 19% -- 7% -- 3.26 3.47 Treating participants with respect 63% 11% 15% 4% 7% -- 3.19 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 63% 11% 4% 7% 15% -- 3.00 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 70% 7% 7% 4% 11% -- 3.22 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.17 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.13 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.47 case 3.24 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.14 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 2.96 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 13 Fairness Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Grinnan Number of Responses: 27 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 74% 4% 7% 11% 4% -- 3.33 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 59% 19% -- 4% 19% -- 2.96 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 50% 15% 4% -- 12% 19% 3.14 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 63% 7% 11% 4% 7% 7% 3.24 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.13 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.60 Communications Overall Average 3.52 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.63 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.59 Making sure all participants understand the 3.54 proceedings 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 14 Communications Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Grinnan Judges Making sure all participants 59% 22% 15% -- 4% -- 3.33 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 74% 19% 4% -- 4% -- 3.59 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 78% 11% 7% 4% -- -- 3.63 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.52 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.21 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.45 wasted time 3.15 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.31 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.50 for cases 3.19 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.04 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 15 Diligence Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Grinnan Judges Beginning court on time 48% 26% 15% 4% 7% -- 3.04 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 56% 19% 19% 4% 4% -- 3.19 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 63% 26% 4% 4% -- 4% 3.54 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 56% 22% 15% -- 4% 4% 3.31 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 52% 22% 19% 4% 4% -- 3.15 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.21 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.36 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.06 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.12 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.41 outside pressure 3.19 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 2.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Grinnan Table 16 Application of Law Judge Michael K. Grinnan All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Grinnan Number of Responses: 27 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 56% 15% 4% 7% 15% 4% 2.92 3.37 Willing to make decision without 63% 15% 4% 4% 11% 4% 3.19 3.41 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 59% 15% 7% 4% 11% 4% 3.12 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.06 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Grinnan is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Grinnan is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 80% 74% 70% 60% 40% 15% 20% 11% 7% 7% 4% 6% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Grinnan All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 Grinnan are. If you feel Judge Grinnan generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 80% 72% 63% 60% 40% 20% 15% 11% 6% 8% 7% 8% 4% 6% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Grinnan All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 25 - 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score—judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend80%respondent count not on recordNon-attorneys recommend72%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Michael K. Grinnan 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Michael K. Grinnan, 58 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 41 agreed they had worked with Judge Grinnan enough to evaluate his performance. 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 Figure 1 4.00 4 3.39 3.22 3.18 3.11 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.22 3.39 3.11 4.00 3.18 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 94% 83% 80% 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 16% 12% 12% 11% 7% 6% 6% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 80% 94% 72% 100% 83% standards No, does not meet performance 12% 6% 16% 0% 11% standards No opinion 7% 0% 12% 0% 6% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.66 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.37 3.08 4.00 3.08 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.20 3.27 4.00 3.39 Diligence 3.31 2.93 4.00 3.00 Demeanor 3.42 3.13 4.00 3.18 Fairness N/A 3.15 4.00 3.25 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 61 0 23 38% 30% Total Non- 639 203 35 8% 29% Attorneys Staff 7 0 5 71% 0% Jurors 17 0 4 24% 25% Other Non- 615 203 26 6% 35% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Grinnan, 23 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 16 agreed they had worked with Judge Grinnan enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 16 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.66 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.67 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.63 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.5 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.75 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Michael K. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Grinnan Promptly issuing a decision on the 11 3 1 -- -- 1 16 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 11 4 1 -- -- -- 16 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 10 1 3 -- -- 2 16 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 13 2 1 -- -- -- 16 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.37 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.47 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3.31 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.2 are similar 3.15 3.38 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 3.31 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 11 1 2 1 -- 1 16 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 10 2 3 1 -- -- 16 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 1 -- 1 -- -- 5 similar Being fair and impartial to both 11 2 1 2 -- -- 16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 9 4 2 1 -- -- 16 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.2 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.4 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 8 5 2 -- -- 1 16 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 5 6 1 2 -- 2 16 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.42 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.44 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.38 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3.44 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 10 4 1 1 -- -- 16 dignity Treating participants with respect 10 4 1 -- 1 -- 16 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 12 1 1 2 -- -- 16 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Grinnan on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.25 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.2 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.62 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 8 5 2 1 -- -- 16 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 8 4 2 -- 1 1 16 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 8 5 -- -- -- 3 16 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Grinnan meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Yes, meets performance 94% standards No, does not meet 6% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Michael K. Grinnan, 35 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 25 agreed they had worked with Judge Grinnan enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 25 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.13 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.27 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.23 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 15 7 1 2 1 -- 26 Treating participants with respect 15 7 1 1 2 -- 26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 13 6 2 4 1 -- 26 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 13 7 2 1 3 -- 26 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.15 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.23 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.04 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.11 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.2 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 15 7 1 1 2 -- 26 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 13 6 2 2 2 1 26 case without bias Treating fairly people who 10 3 3 1 1 8 26 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 13 7 3 1 1 1 26 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.27 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.27 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.23 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.31 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 15 6 3 1 1 -- 26 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 14 7 3 1 1 -- 26 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 15 7 2 1 1 -- 26 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 2.93 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 2.58 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.08 for cases 3.64 3.12 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.04 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.08 wasted time 3.55 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 10 6 2 5 3 -- 26 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 12 8 2 1 2 1 26 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 14 5 3 1 2 1 26 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 13 6 1 4 1 1 26 Managing court proceedings so that there is 13 6 4 2 1 -- 26 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.08 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 2.83 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.3 outside pressure 3.55 3.24 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Grinnan All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Michael K. Grinnan A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 11 4 3 3 2 3 26 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 15 3 3 1 1 3 26 pressure Being able to identify and 15 5 2 2 1 1 26 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Grinnan meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Yes, meets performance 72% standards No, does not meet 16% performance standards No opinion 12% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Michael K. Grinnan 22
- 2014 cycle
- 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinnnnaann 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 13th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Michael K. Grinnan Kit Carson County Courthouse 251 16th St., Suite 301 Burlington, CO 80807 Dear Judge Grinnan: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Michael K. Grinnan May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Michael K. Grinnan received an overall combined average grade of 3.01 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 2.88, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.13, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Grinnan Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.01 2.88 3.13 Sample Size - 22 111 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Grinnan’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Grinnan Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 2.90 2.78 5 3.01 54 2010 2.90 2.72 10 3.08 20 2012 3.25 3.17 7 3.33 37 Overall 3.01 2.88 22 3.13 111 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Grinnan’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Grinnan Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Grinnan Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.73 17 15% 3.02 94 85% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 22 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 23% 27% 9% 0% 0% 41% 3.23 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 41% 18% 36% 0% 5% 0% 2.91 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 23% 23% 14% 0% 0% 41% 3.15 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 18% 18% 5% 0% 9% 3.25 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.14 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 27% 32% 9% 27% 5% 0% 2.50 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 41% 18% 18% 9% 14% 0% 2.64 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 23% 23% 18% 9% 9% 18% 2.50 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 32% 26% 16% 0% 16% 11% 2.65 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.57 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 41% 41% 14% 5% 0% 0% 3.18 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 27% 18% 23% 9% 0% 23% 2.82 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.00 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 36% 50% 14% 0% 0% 0% 3.23 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 41% 45% 9% 5% 0% 0% 3.23 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 41% 27% 18% 5% 9% 0% 2.86 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 23% 18% 18% 14% 14% 14% 2.26 3.23 Overall Demeanor 2.90 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 41% 18% 14% 14% 14% 0% 2.59 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 32% 32% 14% 9% 9% 5% 2.71 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 18% 5% 0% 9% 3.25 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.85 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 2.88 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 25% Completely neutral 37% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 32% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 21% 3% Don't know or not sure 11% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% 56% Recommend retain 29% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 9% Recommend not retain 14% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 86% 79% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 14% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% 56% Recommend retain 29% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 9% Recommend not retain 14% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 86% 78% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 14% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.88 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.14 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.23 case after trial. 3.50 2.91 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.15 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.25 3.37 2.57 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 2.50 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 2.64 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 2.50 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 2.65 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.00 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.18 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 2.82 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.90 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.23 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 3.23 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.86 neutral manner. 3.24 2.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 2.85 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.59 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.71 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.25 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 37% Completely Neutral 51% 32% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 21% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 11% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 56% 29% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 0% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Grinnan Judges* Total Retain 86% 79% 14% Recommend not retain Neither 0% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 14% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 56% 29% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 0% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Grinnan Judges* 14% Recommend not retain Total Retain 86% 78% 5% Neither 0% 9% 0% Total Not Retain 14% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 111 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 50% 26% 15% 4% 5% 0% 3.12 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 55% 26% 7% 5% 6% 0% 3.20 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 51% 18% 12% 9% 8% 1% 2.96 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 48% 28% 11% 4% 8% 1% 3.06 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.09 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 55% 27% 7% 4% 5% 2% 3.24 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 51% 19% 12% 5% 10% 3% 2.98 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 42% 21% 7% 4% 5% 21% 3.14 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 60% 17% 9% 3% 5% 5% 3.31 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.17 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 52% 31% 7% 4% 5% 2% 3.24 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 58% 24% 10% 1% 5% 3% 3.34 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 66% 24% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3.53 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.37 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 47% 23% 9% 8% 9% 4% 2.94 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 55% 23% 12% 4% 4% 3% 3.26 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 25% 10% 5% 6% 5% 3.12 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 50% 24% 5% 9% 7% 5% 3.05 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 49% 23% 13% 6% 8% 2% 3.00 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.07 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 50% 22% 13% 5% 8% 3% 3.04 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 49% 17% 5% 5% 11% 12% 3.00 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 51% 18% 9% 5% 11% 5% 2.98 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.01 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.13 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 12% 13% Competely neutral 63% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 27% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.53 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% 12% Competely neutral 65% 76% Lenient sentencing total 24% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.53 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 52% 67% Recommend retain 30% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 82% 85% Neither 9% 6% Total Not Retain 9% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 46% 64% Recommend retain 27% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 11% 5% Total Retain 73% 81% Neither 8% 6% Total Not Retain 8% 9% Don't Know 11% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.13 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.09 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.12 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.20 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 2.96 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.06 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.17 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.24 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 2.98 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.14 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.31 or her case. 3.58 3.37 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.24 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.34 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.53 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.07 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 2.94 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.26 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.12 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.05 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.00 little wasted time. 3.49 3.01 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.04 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.00 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.98 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.53 Michael K. Grinnan 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.53 Michael K. Grinnan 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 52% Strongly recommend retain 67% 30% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 9% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Grinnan Judges* 3% Recommend not retain Total Retain 82% 85% 3% Neither 9% 6% Total Not Retain 9% 9% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 46% Strongly recommend retain 64% 27% Recommend retain 17% 8% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 3% Judge Grinnan Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 73% 81% Neither 8% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 8% 9% 6% Total DK 11% 5% Don't know enough to make a 11% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Grinnan is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 19 8 2 0 9 52.9% Defense Attorneys 54 44 1 0 9 17.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 13 10 0 0 3 23.1% Total Attorneys 87 62 3 0 22 26.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 24 7 5 3 9 47.4% Law Enforcement 42 13 11 2 16 51.6% Defendant 454 216 182 4 52 19.1% Civil Litigant 68 34 21 2 11 23.4% Witness 12 4 4 1 3 37.5% Jurors 33 15 1 0 17 53.1% Employees, including Interpreters 4 0 1 0 3 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 637 289 225 12 111 26.9% Grand Total: 724 351 228 12 133 26.8% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinnnnaann 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Michael K. Grinnan Kit Carson County Courthouse 251 16th St., Suite 301 Burlington, CO 80807 Dear Judge Grinnan: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Michael K. Grinnan received an overall combined average grade of 3.23 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.19, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.27, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Grinnan Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.23 3.19 3.27 Sample Size - 27 76 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Grinnan’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Grinnan Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 2.90 2.72 10 3.08 20 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.25 3.17 7 3.33 37 2013 3.50 3.64 10 3.36 19 Overall 3.23 3.19 27 3.27 76 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Grinnan’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Grinnan Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.73 17 22% 3.14 59 78% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 30% 19% 7% 0% 0% 44% 3.40 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 52% 22% 26% 0% 0% 0% 3.26 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 30% 22% 11% 0% 0% 37% 3.29 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 59% 19% 15% 0% 0% 7% 3.48 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.36 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 37% 30% 15% 19% 0% 0% 2.85 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 48% 19% 19% 7% 7% 0% 2.93 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 26% 22% 19% 4% 7% 22% 2.71 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 32% 9% 0% 9% 9% 3.05 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.89 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 59% 30% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3.48 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 37% 19% 11% 7% 0% 26% 3.15 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.32 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 56% 37% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.48 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 56% 30% 11% 4% 0% 0% 3.37 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 56% 22% 15% 4% 4% 0% 3.22 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 41% 15% 19% 7% 7% 11% 2.83 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.23 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 15% 19% 7% 7% 0% 2.96 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 15% 4% 4% 4% 3.19 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 56% 19% 11% 0% 0% 15% 3.52 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.22 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.19 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 25% Completely neutral 45% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 23% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 18% 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 59% 55% Recommend retain 35% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 0% 9% Recommend not retain 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 94% 78% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 6% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.19 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.36 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.40 case after trial. 3.50 3.26 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.29 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.48 3.37 2.89 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 2.85 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 2.93 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 2.71 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 3.05 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.32 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.48 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.15 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan 555 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.23 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.48 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.37 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.22 neutral manner. 3.20 2.83 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.22 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.96 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.19 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.52 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 45% Completely Neutral 51% 23% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 18% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 14% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 666 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? 59% Strongly recommend retain 55% 35% Recommend retain 23% 0% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Grinnan Judges* Total Retain 94% 78% 6% Neither 0% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 6% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 777 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7766)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 76 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 50% 34% 9% 1% 5% 0% 3.22 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 58% 32% 5% 0% 5% 0% 3.37 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 53% 24% 8% 7% 8% 0% 3.08 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 45% 37% 12% 0% 7% 0% 3.13 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.20 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 54% 33% 4% 1% 7% 1% 3.28 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 53% 24% 12% 4% 5% 3% 3.18 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 42% 25% 3% 5% 4% 21% 3.22 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 62% 18% 8% 1% 5% 5% 3.38 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.27 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 55% 30% 5% 4% 4% 1% 3.31 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 61% 26% 4% 1% 5% 3% 3.39 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 71% 20% 4% 0% 4% 1% 3.55 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.42 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 51% 25% 9% 7% 4% 4% 3.18 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 22% 8% 1% 4% 1% 3.41 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 29% 5% 1% 4% 7% 3.37 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 55% 26% 3% 5% 5% 5% 3.28 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 51% 27% 11% 5% 5% 1% 3.14 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.28 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 55% 24% 13% 3% 4% 1% 3.24 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 50% 28% 4% 4% 5% 9% 3.25 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.23 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.27 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11911 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 10% 11% Competely neutral 69% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 22% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.29 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 10% Competely neutral 75% 76% Lenient sentencing total 20% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.29 -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 43% 68% Recommend retain 39% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% 6% Recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 5% Total Retain 82% 86% Neither 12% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 111220 ## Page 14 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.27 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.20 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.22 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.37 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.08 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.13 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.27 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.28 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.18 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.22 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.38 or her case. 3.60 3.42 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.31 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.39 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.55 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan 111331 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.28 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.18 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.41 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.37 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.28 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.14 little wasted time. 3.51 3.23 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.24 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.25 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.21 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.29 Michael K. Grinnan 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.29 Michael K. Grinnan -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111442 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? 43% Strongly recommend retain 68% 39% Recommend retain 18% 12% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Grinnan Judges* 2% Total Retain 82% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 12% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 8% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111553 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 221115 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 221226 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 221337 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 221448 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Grinnan is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 221559 ## Page 23 Judge Michael K. Grinnan 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 9 4 0 9 50.0% Defense Attorneys 54 35 5 0 14 28.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 10 7 0 0 3 30.0% Total Attorneys 87 51 9 0 27 34.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 21 7 4 1 9 52.9% Law Enforcement 30 10 8 1 11 50.0% Defendant 377 166 178 3 30 15.1% Civil Litigant 41 19 15 2 5 19.2% Witness 4 0 2 0 2 100.0% Jurors 33 15 1 0 17 53.1% Employees, including Interpreters 5 2 1 0 2 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 511 219 209 7 76 25.2% Grand Total: 598 270 218 7 103 27.1% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 222660 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
- 2010 cycle
- 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinnnnaann 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 13th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Michael K. Grinnan Kit Carson County Courthouse 251 16th St., Suite 301 Burlington, CO 80807 Dear Judge Grinnan: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Michael K. Grinnan September 24, 2009 Page 2 Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1100)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 10 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 30% 40% 10% 0% 0% 20% 3.25 3.48 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 30% 30% 30% 0% 10% 0% 2.70 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 10% 30% 10% 0% 0% 50% 3.00 3.36 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 2.89 3.35 Overall Case Management 2.96 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 30% 30% 10% 20% 10% 0% 2.50 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 40% 10% 30% 10% 10% 0% 2.60 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 30% 10% 10% 20% 0% 30% 2.71 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 30% 10% 10% 20% 10% 20% 2.38 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.55 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 50% 20% 10% 20% 0% 0% 3.00 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 33% 17% 33% 0% 17% 0% 2.50 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 2.75 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 20% 40% 30% 10% 0% 0% 2.70 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 20% 60% 10% 10% 0% 0% 2.90 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 20% 30% 20% 10% 20% 0% 2.20 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 30% 20% 0% 30% 20% 0% 2.10 3.23 Overall Demeanor 2.48 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 20% 30% 0% 30% 20% 0% 2.00 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 10% 30% 10% 30% 20% 0% 1.80 3.23 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 20% 20% 20% 20% 0% 20% 2.50 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.10 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 2.57 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges Sample Size = 10 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 30% Completely neutral 17% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 33% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 33% 2% Don't know/not sure 17% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 50% 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 0% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 12% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 38% 7% Total Retain 50% 86% Total Not Retain 50% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 50% 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 0% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 12% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 38% 7% Total Retain 50% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 50% 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.57 Overall Average Grade 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.96 3.40 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.25 case after trial. 3.48 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.70 proceedings. 3.40 3.00 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.89 3.35 2.55 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.50 relevant facts. 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.60 3.15 2.71 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.38 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.20 2.75 Q3. Overall Communication 3.36 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.00 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.50 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.23 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges Ju d20g09e In tMerimic Juhdiaciael Ple rKfor.m Gancrei Snurnveayn 4 ## Page 8 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.48 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 2.70 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.40 2.90 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.20 in a neutral manner. 3.20 2.10 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.23 2.10 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.00 releveant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.23 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.50 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 17% Completely Neutral 46% 33% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 33% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 17% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 0% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Cnty Judge Grinnan Judges 12% Total Retain 50% 86% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 50% 14% 7% 38% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain in office 66% 0% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Cnty 0% Judge Grinnan Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 50% 81% Undecided 0% 5% 12% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 50% 13% 6% 38% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 9966)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 96 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 45% 28% 16% 3% 7% 0% 3.01 3.52 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 54% 23% 9% 7% 6% 0% 3.11 3.53 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 47% 20% 16% 4% 11% 2% 2.91 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 43% 26% 15% 8% 6% 1% 2.93 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 2.99 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 51% 27% 8% 7% 5% 1% 3.12 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 49% 11% 18% 8% 14% 0% 2.74 3.43 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 44% 22% 11% 9% 4% 11% 3.04 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 49% 24% 9% 7% 7% 2% 3.03 3.52 Overall Fairness 2.98 3.48 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 59% 22% 9% 5% 4% 0% 3.26 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 64% 24% 11% 0% 1% 0% 3.51 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 63% 26% 6% 2% 1% 1% 3.50 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.42 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 46% 19% 15% 4% 14% 2% 2.80 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 58% 21% 12% 4% 4% 1% 3.26 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 28% 12% 4% 5% 1% 3.14 3.50 4d. Being prepared for cases. 54% 24% 10% 4% 7% 1% 3.16 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 49% 19% 16% 5% 10% 1% 2.94 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.06 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 43% 20% 17% 5% 12% 3% 2.80 3.41 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 41% 18% 14% 7% 12% 8% 2.76 3.43 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 45% 25% 7% 6% 14% 2% 2.84 3.42 Overall Application of Law 2.80 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.05 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges Sample Size = 96 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 17% 14% Competely neutral 42% 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 42% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.95 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 15% 16% Competely neutral 44% 73% Lenient sentencing total 43% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.74 0.15 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 64% 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 12% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 11% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 13% 7% Total Retain 76% 90% Total Not Retain 24% 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 56% 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 14% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 11% 6% Total Retain 66% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 14% 9% Total Not Retain 20% 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.05 Overall Average Grade 3.49 2.99 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.01 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.52 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.11 3.53 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 2.91 manner. 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 2.93 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.39 2.98 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.48 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.12 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 2.74 case without bias. 3.43 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.04 themselves. 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.03 or her case. 3.52 3.42 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.61 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.26 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.51 understand. 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.50 can hear what's being said. 3.65 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges Ju 2d00g9 eInt eMrimi Jcuhdicaiale Ple rKform. aGncer iSnurnveyan 10 ## Page 14 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.06 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.49 2.80 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.26 proceedings. 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.14 3.50 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.16 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 2.94 little wasted time. 3.43 2.80 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 2.80 3.41 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 2.76 possible outside pressure. 3.43 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.84 relevant facts. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.95 Michael K. Grinnan 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.74 Michael K. Grinnan 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 64% Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 12% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Grinnan Judges Total Retain 76% 90% 11% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 24% 10% 3% 13% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 56% Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 14% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Grinnan Judges Total Retain 66% 82% 9% Undecided 14% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 20% 9% 11% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning county judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in County Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Grinnan. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table on page below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non- attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Grinnan is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3 0 0 0 3 100.0% Defense Attorneys 3 2 0 0 1 33.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 11 5 1 0 5 50.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 20 9 1 0 10 52.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 15 5 3 2 5 41.7% Law Enforcement 39 12 7 0 20 62.5% Defendant 421 235 134 3 49 17.1% Civil Litigant 68 31 17 1 19 37.3% Jurors 6 2 1 0 3 60.0% Total Non-attorneys 549 285 162 6 96 24.8% Grand Total: 569 294 163 6 106 26.1% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total Other 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all county judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all county judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all county judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2909 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 6% 2% 1% 24% 3.48 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 25% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 4% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 26% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 18% 11% 7% 4% 27% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 24% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 29% 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 19% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 20% 11% 7% 4% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 26% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 24% 10% 5% 3% 10% 3.23 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2909 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 97% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 11374 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.47 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 18% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 15% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.43 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.42 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.48 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 17% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.61 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 16% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 60% 22% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 17% 6% 2% 2% 13% 3.50 4d.Being prepared for cases. 67% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.54 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.41 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 57% 13% 5% 3% 4% 18% 3.43 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 16% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 11374 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 16% Competely neutral 73% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.15 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinnnnaann 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Michael K. Grinnan Kit Carson County Courthouse 251 16th St., Suite 301 Burlington, CO 80807 Dear Judge Grinnan: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, and second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Michael K. Grinnan March 30, 2010 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Michael K. Grinnan an overall average grade1 of 2.57, and non-attorneys assigned Judge Grinnan an overall average grade of 3.02 resulting in a combined grade of 2.80. The average combined grade for all county judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.41. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Grinnan Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 2.80 2.57 3.02 Sample Size - 10 118 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Grinnan’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Grinnan Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Score2 Average Score Average Score 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 2.32 2.82 2.80 1.73 2.53 2.66 2.91 3.11 2.94 Sample Size - - - 1 5 4 27 43 48 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 County judges who were appointed between 2007 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 47%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.82, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Grinnan’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county Judge Grinnan Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.79 2.97 Percent of Sample 3% 97% Sample Size 3 115 County Judge Average 3.82 3.26 Table 3 judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Grinnan’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1100)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 10 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 30% 40% 10% 0% 0% 20% 3.25 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 30% 30% 30% 0% 10% 0% 2.70 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 10% 30% 10% 0% 0% 50% 3.00 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 2.89 3.37 Overall Case Management 2.96 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 30% 30% 10% 20% 10% 0% 2.50 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 40% 10% 30% 10% 10% 0% 2.60 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 30% 10% 10% 20% 0% 30% 2.71 3.04 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 30% 10% 10% 20% 10% 20% 2.38 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.55 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 50% 20% 10% 20% 0% 0% 3.00 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 33% 17% 33% 0% 17% 0% 2.50 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 2.75 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 20% 40% 30% 10% 0% 0% 2.70 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 20% 60% 10% 10% 0% 0% 2.90 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 20% 30% 20% 10% 20% 0% 2.20 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 30% 20% 0% 30% 20% 0% 2.10 3.24 Overall Demeanor 2.48 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 20% 30% 0% 30% 20% 0% 2.00 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 10% 30% 10% 30% 20% 0% 1.80 3.26 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 20% 20% 20% 20% 0% 20% 2.50 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.10 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 2.57 3.31 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges Sample Size = 10 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 29% Completely neutral 17% 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 33% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 33% 2% Don't know or not sure 17% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 50% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 0% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 13% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 38% 7% Total Retain 50% 87% Total Not Retain 51% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 50% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 0% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 13% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 38% 7% Total Retain 50% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 51% 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.57 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.96 3.42 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.25 case after trial. 3.49 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.70 proceedings. 3.43 3.00 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.89 3.37 2.55 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.50 relevant facts. 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.60 3.13 2.71 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.38 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.24 2.75 Q3. Overall Communication 3.38 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.00 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.50 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges Ju d20g10e J uMdiciiacl Pheraforemla nKce .S uGrveryi Rnenpoartn 6 ## Page 10 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.48 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 2.70 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.42 2.90 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.38 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.20 in a neutral manner. 3.23 2.10 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 2.10 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.00 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.50 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.37 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 17% Completely Neutral 48% 33% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 33% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 17% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain 71% 0% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Judge Grinnan Judges 13% Total Retain 50% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 51% 13% 6% 38% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain 67% 0% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Cnty 0% Judge Grinnan Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 50% 82% Undecided or DK 0% 5% 13% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 51% 13% 6% 38% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMiicchhaaeell KK.. GGrriinaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 188)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Sample Size = 118 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grinnan Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 44% 28% 17% 4% 7% 0% 2.97 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 51% 26% 9% 7% 7% 0% 3.08 3.55 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 46% 20% 15% 7% 10% 2% 2.86 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 44% 26% 15% 7% 9% 1% 2.90 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 2.95 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 49% 28% 9% 8% 5% 2% 3.10 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 47% 15% 17% 7% 14% 1% 2.75 3.46 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 42% 24% 11% 7% 4% 11% 3.05 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 48% 26% 9% 8% 6% 3% 3.05 3.55 Overall Fairness 2.99 3.51 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 57% 25% 8% 5% 4% 1% 3.27 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 60% 26% 11% 0% 3% 1% 3.41 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 62% 27% 6% 3% 1% 2% 3.49 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.39 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 44% 18% 15% 5% 16% 3% 2.72 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 55% 21% 14% 4% 4% 2% 3.20 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 48% 27% 11% 6% 6% 2% 3.07 3.52 4d. Being prepared for cases. 50% 25% 10% 5% 8% 2% 3.06 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 47% 20% 15% 6% 10% 2% 2.89 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 2.99 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 44% 21% 15% 6% 12% 3% 2.81 3.44 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 42% 18% 13% 6% 14% 8% 2.74 3.47 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 45% 24% 9% 6% 14% 3% 2.83 3.45 Overall Application of Law 2.79 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.02 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Michael K. Grinnan Michael K. All County Grinnan Judges Sample Size = 118 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 20% 14% Competely neutral 42% 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 39% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.69 0.14 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 14% 13% Competely neutral 45% 74% Lenient sentencing total 40% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.77 0.11 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 60% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 11% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 6% Total Retain 76% 91% Total Not Retain 25% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 52% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 14% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 13% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 6% Total Retain 66% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 13% 9% Total Not Retain 21% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.02 Overall Average Grade 3.52 2.95 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2.97 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.08 3.55 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 2.86 manner. 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 2.90 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 2.99 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.51 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.10 heard. 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the 2.75 case without bias. 3.46 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.05 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.05 or her case. 3.55 3.39 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.27 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.60 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.41 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.49 can hear what's being said. 3.66 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges Ju 2d01g0 eJu dMiciailc Pehrfaormealn cKe S. uGrvery iRnepnorat n 12 ## Page 16 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.99 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.51 2.72 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.20 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.07 3.52 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.06 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 2.89 little wasted time. 3.45 2.79 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.45 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 2.81 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 2.74 possible outside pressure. 3.47 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.83 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.69 Michael K. Grinnan 0.14 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.77 Michael K. Grinnan 0.11 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges Judge Michael K. Grinnan Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Grinnan be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Grinnan Judges Total Retain 76% 91% 11% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 25% 9% 3% 14% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 52% Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 14% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 13% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Grinnan Judges Total Retain 66% 83% 9% Undecided 13% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 21% 9% 12% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Michael K. Grinnan All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14 ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Grinnan is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all county judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Judge Michael K. Grinnan Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Defense Attorneys 25 18 1 0 6 25.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 5 5 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 36 25 1 0 10 28.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 17 6 3 2 6 42.9% Law Enforcement 48 14 10 1 23 60.5% Defendant 490 260 165 4 61 18.8% Civil Litigant 81 36 22 1 22 37.3% Witness 6 5 0 1 0 0.0% Jurors 6 2 1 0 3 60.0% Employees 4 0 1 0 3 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 652 323 202 9 118 26.2% Grand Total: 688 348 203 9 128 26.4% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1275 876 39 2 358 29.0% Defense Attorneys 5161 3380 119 9 1653 32.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 24 10 6 0 8 44.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1440 812 73 2 553 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 660 431 36 1 192 30.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role 26 9 6 0 11 55.0% Total Attorneys 8586 5518 279 14 2775 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 4952 2734 1069 81 1068 28.1% Defendant 26197 14235 9044 287 2631 15.6% Victim 238 163 68 4 3 1.8% Witness 2737 1497 815 111 314 17.3% Other 1604 976 436 17 175 15.2% Civil Litigant 7606 4092 1996 111 1407 25.6% Witness 413 247 78 7 81 24.7% Other 104 74 17 0 13 14.9% Total Non-attorneys 43851 24018 13523 618 5692 18.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 10350 4609 590 201 4950 51.8% Employees 277 119 36 29 93 43.9% Total Other 10627 4728 626 230 5043 50.4% Total 63064 34264 14428 862 13510 27.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. None of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2775 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 6% 2% 1% 25% 3.49 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 11% 5% 2% 4% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 23% 12% 6% 4% 9% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 19% 10% 6% 4% 23% 3.04 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 23% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 28% 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 18% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 20% 10% 7% 4% 1% 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 3% 6% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 24% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 10% 3.26 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2775 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% Completely neutral 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 10735 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.50 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 4% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.55 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.46 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.51 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 15% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 61% 22% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3.39 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.52 4d.Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.56 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 17% 6% 3% 3% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 4% 2% 4% 18% 3.47 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 10735 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.14 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.11 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 91% Total Not Retain 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026