← All judges

Robert E. Haeger

Trial Court · Huerfano · Huerfano

Meets Standards(Retain)4 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Huerfano · Huerfano
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Third Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Robert E. Haeger BE RETAINED. Having previously practiced in other jurisdictions, Judge Haeger was appointed Huerfano County Judge by former Governor Romer in November 1987 and was admitted to the practice of law in Colorado in January 1988. Judge Haeger graduated from Iowa Wesleyan College with a B.A. in sociology in 1962. He earned a J.D. degree from Chicago Kent College of Law in 1966. Judge Haeger was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1966, admitted to the practice of law in the Federal District Court, Northern District, Illinois (Chicago) in 1966 and admitted to the practice of law in the United States Supreme Court in 1968. During his 20 years of active law practice, Judge Haeger was a successful trial attorney. He and his wife live in Huerfano County. Judge Haeger presently hears small claims, civil, traffic and misdemeanor cases. Judge Haeger also acts as a Settlement Officer, and is often sent out of the judicial district on special assignments. He has participated in settling many high profile cases throughout Colorado with a high degree of success. He has handled over 250 settlement cases. The Commission interviewed Judge Haeger and found him to be confident, knowledgeable of the law and a competent judge. He tries to dispense justice individually, which may explain comments from survey results of moodiness or temperament because he deliberately tailors his delivery to the particular situation and how he has sized up the litigants and sometimes comes down quite heavily on parties if he believes it is warranted. His pet peeve is rudeness in the courtroom, especially on the part of any attorney who appear in front of him. The judge expects that basic courtesy and rules be followed, which may cause some clashes. Non-attorneys routinely rated Judge Haeger higher in their survey responses than the attorney respondents. Of the 82 non-attorneys responding to the survey, 67% recommended retention, 15% recommended non-retention and 18% had no opinion. Of the nine attorneys responding, 44% recommended retention, 33% recommended non-retention and 22% had no opinion. Based on the Commission’s extensive interview with Judge Haeger, his self-evaluation and the opinions provided in the survey of attorneys, litigants and court staff, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to recommend retention of Judge Robert E. Haeger.
  • 1998 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Huerfano · Huerfano
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Third Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Robert E. Haeger BE RETAINED. Judge Robert Haeger was appointed County Judge of Huerfano County by Governor Roy R. Romer on November 4, 1987, and admitted to the practice of law in Colorado in January 1988. Judge Haeger graduated from Iowa Wesleyan College with a B.A. in Sociology in 1962. He earned a J.D. degree from Chicago Kent College of Law in 1966. Judge Haeger was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1966, admitted to the practice of law in the Federal District Court in 1966 and to the United States Supreme Court in 1968. During his 20 years of active law practice, Robert Haeger was a successful trial attorney. Robert Haeger and his wife Carole live in Huerfano County, where he operates a ranch on a part time basis. Judge Haeger is presently hearing small claims, civil, traffic and misdemeanor cases. Judge Haeger also acts as a Settlement Officer, and is often sent out of the Judicial District on special assignments. He has participated in settling many high profile cases throughout Colorado. The Judicial Review Commission interviewed Judge Haeger and found him to be articulate, very confident, knowledgeable of the law, and a competent judge. The Commission was especially impressed with Judge Haeger's independent thinking and creative approaches to resolving disputes and dispensing justice. Therefore, the Commission recommends that Judge Robert Haeger be retained.
  • 1994 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Huerfano · Huerfano
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain On January 4, 1988 Judge Haeger was admitted to the practice of law in Colorado. He was appointed County Judge of Huerfano County by Governor Roy R. Romer on November 4, 1987. Judge Haeger graduated from Iowa Wesleyan College with a B.A. as a Sociology Major in 1962. He graduated from Chicago Kent College of Law in 1966 with a J.D. in law. Judge Haeger was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1966, admitted to the practice of law in the Federal District Court in 1966 and the United States Supreme Court in 1968. During his 20 years of active law practice, Robert Haeger was a successful trial attorney. In 1966, Robert Haeger and his family moved to Huerfano County, where he operates a ranch on a part time basis. Judge Haeger is presently hearing small claims, traffic and misdemeanor cases. The judge spends 30% of his time dealing with criminal cases, 30% civil cases and 10% traffic cases. Judge Haeger also acts as a Settlement Officer. He has settle 35 cases throughout Colorado. The Judicial Review Commission interviewed Judge Haeger and found him to be articulate, well prepared for the interview, confident and able. Therefore, the Commission recommends Judge Haeger BE RETAINED.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Huerfano · Huerfano
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Haeger was admitted to the practice of law in Jan. 4, 1988. He was appointed county judge of Huerfano County by Gov. Roy Romer on Nov. 4, 1987. He graduated from Iowa Wesleyan College with a B.A. in sociology, and from Chicago Kent College of Law. He was admitted to the bar in the Federal District Court in 1966 and to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. During his 20 years of active law practice, Haeger was a successful trial attorney. Haeger presently hears small claims, civil, traffic and misdemeanor cases. He also presides over felony preliminary hearings. In 1989, 1,833 cases were filed in county court. He is on the Traffic Code Study Committee. A bill to modify the traffic ticket to include a not-guilty box as well as a guilty box is being presented to the legislature with this assistance. He also was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court to the Judicial Conference Planning Committee. The Judicial Evaluation Committee interviewed and observed Haeger, and found him to be candid, flexible, industrious and nonpartisan. His ratings were at the top of the scale in the responses submitted by lawyers, courthouse workers, and law enforcement officers. The conclusion on the committee is that Haeger is regarded as just, fair and knowledgeable.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Robert E. Haeger Huerfano County Courthouse 401 Main Street, Suite 304 Walsenburg, CO 81089 Dear Judge Haeger: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Robert E. Haeger Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 65% B 44% 22% 21% C 44% 7% 7% D 11% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 2.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 64% 61% B 44% 20% 22% C 33% 7% 8% D 11% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 2.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 48% B 33% 17% 14% C 44% 8% 6% D 11% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 11% 16% 29% Average Grade 2.3 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 67% 63% B 33% 15% 12% C 22% 4% 3% D 11% 1% 1% Fail 11% 1% 1% No Grade 12% 19% Average Grade 2.4 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade C+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 69% 66% B 44% 16% 14% C 22% 5% 5% D 11% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 8% 12% Average Grade 2.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 70% 66% B 33% 14% 13% C 22% 5% 4% D 11% 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 10% 15% Average Grade 2.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 66% 65% B 22% 15% 13% C 22% 6% 5% D 22% 3% 2% Fail 11% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 13% Average Grade 2.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 60% 60% B 67% 18% 17% C 11% 9% 8% D 11% 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 4% 5% Average Grade 2.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 58% 51% B 33% 14% 11% C 11% 6% 4% D 22% 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 22% 19% 31% Average Grade 2.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Haeger on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 56% 59% B 33% 15% 12% C 22% 6% 4% D 11% 2% 1% Fail 22% 3% 2% No Grade 18% 21% Average Grade 2.0 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 29% 37% B 33% 22% 23% C 8% 9% D 11% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 44% 37% 27% Average Grade 2.8 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 51% 54% B 44% 30% 28% C 10% 9% D 22% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 2.9 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 54% B 78% 27% 26% C 10% 9% D 11% 3% 3% Fail 11% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 7% Average Grade 2.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 62% 64% B 44% 21% 21% C 22% 7% 7% D 22% 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 2.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 57% 57% B 67% 22% 22% C 11% 9% 8% D 11% 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 2.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 47% 46% B 11% 27% 27% C 33% 11% 11% D 33% 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 8% 8% Average Grade 2.2 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade C B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 54% B 11% 27% 28% C 33% 11% 9% D 33% 3% 2% Fail 22% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 1.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade D B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 53% 54% B 11% 24% 25% C 22% 11% 10% D 56% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% Average Grade 1.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 11% 56% 58% B 33% 25% 23% C 33% 8% 7% D 22% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 2.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 49% B 33% 18% 18% C 33% 7% 7% D 33% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 21% 21% Average Grade 2.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade C B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Haeger on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 35% 33% B 33% 14% 13% C 22% 5% 5% D 11% 2% 2% Fail 11% 2% 2% No Grade 22% 43% 45% Average Grade 2.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade C B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 47% 53% B 11% 28% 25% C 33% 12% 9% D 11% 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 2.9 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 48% 49% B 22% 24% 25% C 33% 8% 8% D 11% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 16% 13% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 40% 44% B 11% 30% 29% C 44% 13% 12% D 11% 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 6% 6% Average Grade 2.7 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Haeger on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 49% 50% B 21% 20% C 33% 9% 8% D 11% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 11% 14% 15% Average Grade 2.9 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Robert E. Haeger Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Haeger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 44% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 33% 11% 11% No opinion 22% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 65% 67% B 27% 20% 19% C 12% 7% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 49% 47% B 26% 16% 15% C 11% 6% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 16% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 63% 65% B 16% 15% 14% C 10% 4% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.3 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 65% 67% B 21% 16% 16% C 12% 5% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 64% 67% B 21% 16% 16% C 11% 6% 5% D 5% 2% 1% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 64% 66% B 20% 16% 15% C 9% 5% 5% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 63% 65% B 23% 16% 16% C 15% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 9% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Haeger on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 45% 43% B 23% 13% 12% C 15% 5% 4% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 13% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Haeger on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 60% 63% B 21% 16% 16% C 5% 5% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 16% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 68% 70% B 27% 20% 19% C 11% 6% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 67% 69% B 20% 19% 18% C 11% 6% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 69% 72% B 24% 17% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 64% 66% B 21% 18% 17% C 13% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 6% 4% 3% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 55% 56% B 29% 23% 22% C 16% 9% 8% D 6% 2% 3% Fail 6% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 9% 9% Average Grade 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 55% 57% B 22% 23% 23% C 20% 9% 9% D 10% 3% 3% Fail 9% 3% 2% No Grade 2% 6% 6% Average Grade 2.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 61% 64% B 23% 19% 18% C 18% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Haeger on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 60% 62% B 14% 17% 16% C 14% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 5% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Haeger on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 64% 67% B 17% 17% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Haeger on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 60% 62% B 22% 19% 18% C 5% 6% 6% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Haeger on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 53% 55% B 15% 15% 14% C 10% 5% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 17% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Robert E. Haeger Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Haeger be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Haeger Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 67% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 15% 9% 8% No opinion 18% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Robert E. Haeger Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 4 3 1 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 15 6 5 1 3 54.5% Attorney for Plaintiff 1 1 Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 20 9 5 1 5 64.3% Law Enforcement 43 21 12 3 7 63.6% Social Services Caseworker Employee 12 9 1 1 1 90.0% Defendant 203 35 105 47 16 25.0% Plaintiff 14 7 1 3 3 87.5% Juror 12 6 3 1 2 66.7% Victim 5 2 2 1 50.0% Other 21 2 11 6 2 15.4% Sub Total: 310 82 135 62 31 37.8% Total: 330 91 140 63 36 39.4% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 3

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