Debra M. Gunkel

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Baca · Baca

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 64.2% yes

  1,135 yes · 633 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Fifteenth Judicial District Judicial Performance Commission agrees by a majority vote that Judge Debra M. Gunkel MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, and does so by a vote of five in agreement and three in disagreement.   Judge Gunkel was appointed to Baca County Court in 2010. Judge Gunkel received her undergraduate degree from Colorado College. She received her law degree from Southwestern University, and an LL.M. in taxation from Boston University. Previously, Judge Gunkel served as a prosecutor for the 16th Judicial District in Colorado. Judge Gunkel is classified as a 20% judge, and she also maintains a private practice. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Gunkel, reviewed opinions she authored, reviewed appeals briefs and decisions of her opinions, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interest parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from both attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Gunkel. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the survey questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Gunkel meets judicial performance standards.” Of the attorneys responding, 33% answered yes, meets performance standards, 33% answered no, does not meet performance standards, and 33% had no opinion regarding whether Judge Gunkel meets performance standards. Of the non-attorneys responding, 50% answered yes, meets performance standards, 25% answered no, does not meet performance standards, and 25% had no opinion.  (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)  A total of three attorneys and eight non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Gunkel’s performance. Judge Gunkel presides over civil, misdemeanor, traffic, and small claims matters. Attorneys responding to the surveys were more critical of Judge Gunkel than non-attorneys. Judge Gunkel’s performance evaluations were less favorable than in previous years. Attorneys rated Judge Gunkel’s performance in “Diligence” lower than all other categories for which she was reviewed. The Commission was satisfied that Judge Gunkel meets performance standards despite such concerns but believed that she should take steps to be better prepared for hearings. Attorneys and non-attorneys rated Judge Gunkel’s performances in “Application and Legal Knowledge” lower as compared to other county court judges.   The Commission shared concerns regarding Judge Gunkel’s “Application of Legal Knowledge” in reviewing her written orders. Ultimately the Commission was satisfied that Judge Gunkel meets minimum performance standards despite such concerns but believes Judge Gunkel should work to improve both her legal knowledge and writing abilities. Judge Gunkel is described as being respectful of all litigants.  Commission members observed this trait during their evaluation and interview with Judge Gunkel. Based on these findings the Commission agreed that Judge Gunkel meets judicial performance standards.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Baca · Baca

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 76.1% yes

  1,344 yes · 422 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Debra M. Gunkel BE RETAINED. Debra Gunkel received her undergraduate degree from Colorado College, followed by an MBA from the University of Denver, a law degree from Southwestern University and an LL.M. in Taxation from Boston University.  Before being appointed to the Baca County Court bench in 2010, she was with the 16th Judicial District Attorney’s Office. Her judgeship is classified as a "20 percent position" (in session one day per week).  Judge Gunkel makes herself available to speak at public schools because she feels it is important for young people to learn about the judicial process. She also teaches business law for Lamar Community College. The Commission voted on its recommendation after observing Judge Gunkel in the courtroom, reviewing opinions she authored, conducting a personal interview, and reading the results of the surveys sent out to a random sampling of people who appeared in her court. On the question of whether or not Judge Gunkel should be retained, 91% of attorneys recommended retaining, 0% recommended not to retain, and 9% made no recommendation. Of non-attorneys surveyed, 61% recommended retaining, 34% not to retain, and 6% made no recommendation. (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Judge Gunkel’s overall score from the surveys was 3.46 out of a possible 4.0 from attorneys, and 2.56 out of 4.0 from non-attorneys. The areas she scored most highly in on the surveys were appropriate demeanor, fairness, diligence and good communication. Judge Gunkel regularly attends training courses, judicial conferences and online seminars in order to increase her knowledge of law and improve her judicial abilities.

Surveys & reports

• 2018 cycle
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    45%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    50%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel, 13 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 11 agreed they had worked with Judge Gunkel enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 11 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 2.95 3 2.89 2.75 2.23 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 2.75 2.23 2.95 N/A 2.89 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Debra M. Gunkel 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 80% 60% 60% 50% 45% 40% 40% 33%33%33% 27%27% 25%25% 20% 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 Debra M. Gunkel Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 45% 33% 50% 0% 60% standards No, does not meet performance 27% 33% 25% 0% 40% standards No opinion 27% 33% 25% 0% 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Debra M. Gunkel 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 2.39 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.07 2.83 N/A 2.80 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.33 3.33 N/A 3.33 Diligence 1.78 2.95 N/A 3.16 Demeanor 2.56 2.78 N/A 2.60 Fairness N/A 2.84 N/A 2.55 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Debra M. Gunkel 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 11 0 5 45% 40% Total Non- 90 25 8 12% 0% Attorneys Staff 3 0 3 100% 0% Jurors 0 0 0 N/A N/A Other Non- 87 25 5 8% 0% 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 Debra M. Gunkel 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Gunkel, 5 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 3 agreed they had worked with Judge Gunkel enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 3 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Gunkel 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 2.39 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 2.67 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 1.5 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Debra M. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Gunkel Promptly issuing a decision on the -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 1 1 -- 1 -- -- 3 over proceedings Promptly ruling on -- -- 1 1 -- 1 3 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 1 1 1 -- -- -- 3 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Gunkel 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 2.07 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 2 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 1.67 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 2.33 are similar 3.15 2.33 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 2 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- 3 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 1 -- -- 1 1 -- 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- 1 2 -- -- -- 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both -- 1 2 -- -- -- 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and -- -- 3 -- -- -- 3 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Gunkel 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 2.33 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 1.67 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 2 -- -- 1 -- -- 3 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, -- 1 -- 2 -- -- 3 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Gunkel 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 2.56 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 2.67 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 2.67 Treating participants with respect 3.30 2.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 1 1 -- 1 -- -- 3 dignity Treating participants with respect 1 1 -- 1 -- -- 3 Conducting his/her courtroom in a -- 2 -- 1 -- -- 3 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Gunkel 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 1.78 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.67 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 1.67 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant -- 1 -- 2 -- -- 3 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- 3 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 1 -- -- 1 1 -- 3 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 Debra M. Gunkel 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Gunkel meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Yes, meets performance 33% standards No, does not meet 33% performance standards No opinion 33% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Debra M. Gunkel 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Debra M. Gunkel, 8 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 8 agreed they had worked with Judge Gunkel enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 8 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 2.78 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 2.88 Treating participants with respect 3.60 2.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 2.88 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3 3 1 1 -- -- 8 Treating participants with respect 5 1 -- -- 2 -- 8 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 3 1 1 2 1 -- 8 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 5 1 -- -- 2 -- 8 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 2.84 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 2.38 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 2.88 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.13 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 5 1 -- 1 1 -- 8 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 3 1 2 -- 2 -- 8 case without bias Treating fairly people who 5 1 -- -- 2 -- 8 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 5 1 1 -- 1 -- 8 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 3.33 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.13 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.5 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.38 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 4 2 1 1 -- -- 8 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 6 1 -- 1 -- -- 8 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 5 2 -- 1 -- -- 8 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 2.95 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.63 for cases 3.64 2.88 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.5 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 2.75 wasted time 3.55 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 3 4 -- -- 1 -- 8 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 3 1 3 -- 1 -- 8 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 3 2 2 1 -- -- 8 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 6 1 -- 1 -- -- 8 Managing court proceedings so that there is 3 1 3 1 -- -- 8 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 2.83 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.13 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 2.88 outside pressure 3.55 2.5 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Gunkel All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Debra M. Gunkel A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 5 -- 2 1 -- -- 8 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3 2 2 1 -- -- 8 pressure Being able to identify and 3 2 1 -- 2 -- 8 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 Debra M. Gunkel 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Gunkel meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Yes, meets performance 50% standards No, does not meet 25% performance standards No opinion 25% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Debra M. Gunkel 22
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee DDeebbrraa MM.. GGuunnkkeell 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Debra M. Gunkel 741 Main Street, Suite 5 Springfield, CO 81073 Dear Judge Gunkel: 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. Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel received an overall combined average grade of 3.04 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.68, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 2.39, 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 Gunkel Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.04 3.68 2.39 Sample Size - 4 8 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 Gunkel’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Gunkel Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 2010 2012 3.04 3.68 4 2.39 8 Overall 3.04 3.68 4 2.39 8 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 Gunkel’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 Gunkel Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Gunkel Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 0.00 0 0% 2.39 8 100% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDeebbrraa MM.. GGuunnkkeell ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 44)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Sample Size = 4 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gunkel Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.56 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.56 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.75 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.94 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.68 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 Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Gunkel Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 50% 25% Completely neutral 50% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 0% 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 75% 56% Recommend retain 25% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 79% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 0% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 75% 56% Recommend retain 25% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 100% 78% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 0% 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 Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.68 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.56 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.50 case after trial. 3.50 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.50 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.75 3.37 3.56 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 3.50 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 3.50 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 3.75 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 3.50 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.75 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.75 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.75 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Debra M. Gunkel All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Debra M. Gunkel 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.94 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.75 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 4.00 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 4.00 neutral manner. 3.24 4.00 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.58 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.50 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.50 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.75 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% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 50% Completely Neutral 51% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gunkel be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain 56% 25% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 0% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Gunkel Judges* Total Retain 100% 79% 0% Recommend not retain Neither 0% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 0% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain 56% 25% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 0% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Gunkel Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 100% 78% 5% Neither 0% 9% 0% Total Not Retain 0% 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% Debra M. Gunkel 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 DDeebbrraa MM.. GGuunnkkeell ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 88)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Sample Size = 8 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gunkel Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 13% 50% 13% 13% 13% 0% 2.38 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 38% 25% 13% 13% 13% 0% 2.63 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 25% 25% 13% 13% 25% 0% 2.13 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 13% 38% 13% 13% 25% 0% 2.00 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 2.29 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 25% 38% 13% 13% 13% 0% 2.50 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 13% 25% 25% 0% 38% 0% 1.75 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 13% 25% 13% 0% 25% 25% 2.00 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 25% 38% 25% 0% 13% 0% 2.63 3.58 Overall Fairness 2.22 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 25% 25% 25% 0% 25% 0% 2.25 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 38% 25% 25% 13% 0% 0% 2.88 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 38% 25% 38% 0% 0% 0% 3.00 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 2.71 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 38% 25% 13% 25% 0% 0% 2.75 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 38% 25% 13% 25% 0% 0% 2.75 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 25% 38% 13% 13% 0% 13% 2.86 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 13% 50% 13% 0% 25% 0% 2.25 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 25% 38% 13% 0% 13% 13% 2.71 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 2.66 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 13% 13% 38% 13% 13% 13% 2.00 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 25% 13% 13% 0% 38% 13% 1.86 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 38% 13% 13% 0% 38% 0% 2.13 3.47 Overall Application of Law 2.00 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 2.39 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 Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Gunkel Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 50% 13% Competely neutral 50% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 1.00 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 0% 12% Competely neutral 50% 76% Lenient sentencing total 50% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -1.00 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 0% 67% Recommend retain 50% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 50% 6% Total Retain 50% 85% Neither 0% 6% Total Not Retain 50% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 0% 64% Recommend retain 43% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 43% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 14% 5% Total Retain 43% 81% Neither 0% 6% Total Not Retain 43% 9% Don't Know 14% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.39 Overall Average Grade 3.55 2.29 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2.38 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 2.63 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 2.13 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 2.00 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 2.22 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 2.50 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 2.00 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 2.63 or her case. 3.58 2.71 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 2.25 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 2.88 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.00 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Debra M. Gunkel All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Debra M. Gunkel 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 2.75 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 2.75 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.86 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 2.25 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 2.71 little wasted time. 3.49 2.00 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 2.00 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.13 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 1.00 Debra M. Gunkel 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 -1.00 Debra M. Gunkel 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. Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gunkel be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 0% Strongly recommend retain 67% 50% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 0% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Gunkel Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 50% 85% 3% Neither 0% 6% Total Not Retain 50% 9% 50% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 0% Strongly recommend retain 64% 43% Recommend retain 17% 0% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 0% Judge Gunkel Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 43% 81% Neither 0% 6% 43% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 43% 9% 6% Total DK 14% 5% Don't know enough to make a 14% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Debra M. Gunkel 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 Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel 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 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Defense Attorneys 12 8 0 0 4 33.3% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 14 9 1 0 4 30.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Defendant 45 28 12 0 5 15.2% Civil Litigant 12 8 2 0 2 20.0% Total Non-attorneys 59 37 14 0 8 17.8% Grand Total: 73 46 15 0 12 20.7% 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 textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee DDeebbrraa MM.. GGuunnkkeell 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Debra M. Gunkel 741 Main Street, Suite 5 Springfield, CO 81073 Dear Judge Gunkel: 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 Debra M. Gunkel received an overall combined average grade of 3.01 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.46, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 2.56, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Gunkel Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.01 3.46 2.56 Sample Size - 11 22 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 Gunkel’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 Gunkel Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.04 3.68 4 2.39 8 2013 2.99 3.31 7 2.66 14 Overall 3.01 3.46 11 2.56 22 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 Gunkel’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 Gunkel Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 0.00 0 0% 2.56 22 100% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDeebbrraa MM.. GGuunnkkeell ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Sample Size = 11 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gunkel Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 45% 27% 9% 0% 0% 18% 3.44 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 36% 55% 0% 9% 0% 0% 3.18 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 27% 36% 0% 0% 0% 36% 3.43 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.47 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 45% 45% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.36 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 36% 55% 0% 9% 0% 0% 3.18 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 36% 0% 9% 0% 18% 3.22 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 38% 25% 0% 13% 0% 25% 3.17 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.23 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 18% 9% 0% 0% 9% 3.60 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 45% 9% 9% 0% 0% 36% 3.57 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.59 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.64 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 91% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.91 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 18% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.64 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 64% 27% 0% 9% 0% 0% 3.45 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.66 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 45% 45% 0% 9% 0% 0% 3.27 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 36% 27% 0% 9% 0% 27% 3.25 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 45% 18% 0% 0% 0% 36% 3.71 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.41 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.46 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 Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Gunkel Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 50% 25% Completely neutral 25% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 25% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 64% 55% Recommend retain 27% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 91% 78% Neither 9% 9% Total Not Retain 0% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.46 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.47 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.44 case after trial. 3.50 3.18 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.82 3.37 3.23 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.36 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.18 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.22 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 3.17 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.59 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.60 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.57 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Debra M. Gunkel All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Debra M. Gunkel 555 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.64 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.91 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.64 neutral manner. 3.20 3.45 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.41 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.27 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.25 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.71 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% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 25% Completely Neutral 51% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 25% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gunkel be retained or not retained in office? 64% Strongly recommend retain 55% 27% Recommend retain 23% 9% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Gunkel Judges* Total Retain 91% 78% 0% Neither 9% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 0% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Debra M. Gunkel 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 DDeebbrraa MM.. GGuunnkkeell ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Sample Size = 22 A B C D Fail DK/NA Gunkel Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 27% 36% 14% 5% 18% 0% 2.50 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 52% 14% 10% 5% 19% 0% 2.76 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 33% 29% 10% 10% 19% 0% 2.48 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 41% 14% 18% 5% 23% 0% 2.45 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 2.55 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 45% 23% 5% 9% 18% 0% 2.68 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 38% 19% 10% 5% 29% 0% 2.33 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 41% 14% 14% 0% 23% 9% 2.55 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 43% 24% 14% 0% 14% 5% 2.85 3.60 Overall Fairness 2.60 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 41% 18% 9% 14% 18% 0% 2.50 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 50% 14% 9% 14% 14% 0% 2.73 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 48% 19% 14% 5% 14% 0% 2.81 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 2.68 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 41% 18% 14% 14% 9% 5% 2.71 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 36% 23% 14% 14% 9% 5% 2.67 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 32% 32% 5% 9% 18% 5% 2.52 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 38% 29% 10% 5% 19% 0% 2.62 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 33% 24% 5% 5% 19% 14% 2.56 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 2.62 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 36% 9% 18% 9% 18% 9% 2.40 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 36% 14% 9% 9% 27% 5% 2.24 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 38% 14% 14% 0% 29% 5% 2.35 3.50 Overall Application of Law 2.33 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 2.56 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 Debra M. Gunkel Debra M. All County Gunkel Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 27% 11% Competely neutral 36% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 36% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.27 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 18% 10% Competely neutral 36% 76% Lenient sentencing total 45% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.18 -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 17% 68% Recommend retain 44% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% 6% Recommend not retain 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 28% 5% Total Retain 61% 86% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 34% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 111220 ## Page 14 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.56 Overall Average Grade 3.57 2.55 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2.50 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 2.76 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 2.48 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 2.45 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 2.60 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 2.68 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 2.33 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 2.55 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 2.85 or her case. 3.60 2.68 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 2.50 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 2.73 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 2.81 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Debra M. Gunkel All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Debra M. Gunkel 111331 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.62 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 2.71 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 2.67 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.52 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 2.62 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 2.56 little wasted time. 3.51 2.33 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 2.40 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 2.24 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.35 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.27 Debra M. Gunkel 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 0.18 Debra M. Gunkel -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. Debra M. Gunkel 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 Debra M. Gunkel Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Gunkel be retained or not retained in office? 17% Strongly recommend retain 68% 44% Recommend retain 18% 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Gunkel Judges* 6% Total Retain 61% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 34% 8% 28% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Debra M. Gunkel 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. 111995 ## 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. 221006 ## 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 221117 ## 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 221228 ## 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 Gunkel 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. 221339 ## Page 23 Judge Debra M. Gunkel 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 5 2 1 0 2 50.0% Defense Attorneys 17 10 0 0 7 41.2% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 4 1 1 0 2 66.7% Total Attorneys 26 13 2 0 11 45.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 6 3 1 0 2 40.0% Law Enforcement 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Defendant 105 55 41 1 8 12.5% Civil Litigant 29 15 5 0 9 37.5% Employees, including Interpreters 5 2 0 0 3 60.0% Total Non-attorneys 147 77 47 1 22 22.0% Grand Total: 173 90 49 1 33 26.6% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 222440 ## 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

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

• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026