Karla J. Hansen
Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso
Meets Standards(Retain)4 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2016 retention cycleTrial Court · El Paso · El PasoMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 62.2% yes155,146 yes · 94,224 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance in a 8-2 vote, recommends Judge Karla J. Hansen BE RETAINED. Judge Hansen was appointed to the County Court bench for El Paso County in 2001. Prior to her appointment, Judge Hansen was in private practice and sat on the Municipal Court Bench as a Judge. Judge Hansen started her practice of law as a Deputy District Attorney. Judge Hansen received her law degree from University of Utah. Judge Hansen is currently handling a full County Court docket. Judge Hansen has been active in the community, including speaking engagements, her church, Teen Court, and high school Mock Trial. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hansen, reviewed opinions and the self-assessment provided, observed her in Court, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys. More committee members observed Judge Hansen than any other Judge. Among the survey questions was “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey, 68% recommended to retain, 18% recommended not to retain and 15% made no recommendation. It should be noted this is a relatively low score in relationship to other Judges in the Fourth Judicial District and throughout the State. Of the non-attorneys completing the survey, 87% recommended to retain, 6% recommended not to retain and 6% made no recommendation. (These percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Judge Hansen received lower than average marks in the attorney surveys in most categories. Some very notable areas of concern were “being fair and impartial to both sides of the case” where her score was 2.73 and the average Judge’s score was 3.18. The biggest area of concern was “demeanor,” specifically the area of “treating participants with respect” her score was 2.68 and the average Judge was 3.39. The Commission was also concerned that her bias scores favored the prosecution; 61% of the attorneys surveyed felt she was either very biased or somewhat biased. In the non-attorney scoring the results were mixed, with average scoring in fairness, communication, and application of the law. Judge Hansen scored above average in diligence. Overall however, the Commission was very encouraged in what it feels is growth and self-awareness on the part of Judge Hansen. She has taken the steps to become a better judge, and the Commission believes she should be retained in her position as a County Court Judge.
- 2012 retention cycleTrial Court · El Paso · El PasoCommission vote: 7 for · 2 againstDoes Not Meet(Do Not Retain)VotersRetained· 56.9% yes· retained despite a “does not meet” evaluation126,919 yes · 96,186 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Do Not Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends, by a vote of 7-2, that Judge Karla J. Hansen NOT BE RETAINED. Judge Hansen earned a Bachelor’s Degree in nuclear medicine from the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse in 1978. She graduated from the University of Utah College of Law in 1986 and served as a Fourth Judicial District Deputy District Attorney from 1986 to 1994. Prior to her appointment to the El Paso County Court in 2001, Judge Hansen was in private practice specializing in criminal defense, divorce, and guardian ad litem advocacy. She also served as a part-time Colorado Springs Municipal Court Judge during that time. Judge Hansen has continued to contribute to the community through a variety of service activities including participating in Mock Trial Judging and Teen Court. She is also involved with Habitat for Humanity, Restore projects and Feed Our Starving Children. The Commission reviewed Judge Hansen’s survey data and written comments, interviewed the judge and observed her in the courtroom, read several written decisions and the judge’s self-evaluation. It should be noted that Judge Hansen’s overall average on performance from attorneys’ survey scores has improved slightly each year since 2008. However, her overall Demeanor Scores from attorneys remain lower than average for all county judges up for retention, (Judge Hansen – 2.96 on a 4 point scale, all judges – 3.29) specifically in the areas of treating parties with respect, (Judge Hansen - 2.79, all county judges standing for retention - 3.36) and conducting her courtroom in a neutral manner (Judge Hansen - 2.68, all county judges standing for retention - 3.19). There were similar issues regarding attorneys’ evaluation scores for Judge Hansen during the 2008 retention cycle and Judge Hansen was placed on a performance improvement plan. Commission members expressed concern that after completing the performance improvement plan, Judge Hansen has shown little improvement in those areas of demeanor. There was also concern that the number of attorneys who did not recommend Judge Hansen for retention was double the percent of all county judges standing for retention. Non-attorney performance survey scores show Judge Hansen to be at the average in all areas for county judges standing for retention. Demeanor Scores were comparable to the average of the county judges. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 68% recommended to retain, 27% not to retain, and 4% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 72% recommended to retain and 29% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 87% recommended to retain, 7% not to retain, and 6% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 93% recommended to retain and 8% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) Judge Karla J. Hansen’s Response: I have felt honored to serve the citizens of this county for eleven years. The Judicial Performance Commission has chosen not to include my overall combined survey score of 3.43, compared to an average statewide of 3.45. My survey scores are above average in the areas of work ethic, legal analysis, and efficient case management. I am a no-nonsense judge who follows the letter of the law. I incarcerate dangerous drunk drivers for the protection of the public. Attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared in my Court recommended retention by a significant majority (72% and 93% respectively).
- 2008 retention cycleTrial Court · El Paso · El PasoMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 72.0% yes147,327 yes · 57,384 no50% needed to retainReports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a unanimous vote that Judge Karla J. Hansen BE RETAINED. Background: Judge Hansen was appointed to the County Court in 2001. She graduated from the University of Utah College of Law in 1986, after earning her Bachelor’s Degree in nuclear medicine from the University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse in 1978. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Hansen served as a part-time Colorado Springs Municipal Court judge and had an active law practice specializing in the areas of criminal defense, divorce, and guardian ad litem advocacy. She also served as a Fourth Judicial District deputy district attorney from 1986 to 1994. Judge Hansen currently hears misdemeanors, traffic and civil cases. Strengths: The transcripts of Judge Hansen’s decisions showed that she followed the law, and that her decisions were well-reasoned, clear and concise. Judge Hansen contributes to the community through various activities associated with her church. She also volunteers to do presentations to high school classes, the Girl Scouts, and other organizations. She also has assisted with Teen Court and Mock Trial competitions. Weakness: Attorneys responding to the survey rated Judge Hansen as below average in the categories related to judicial demeanor, and significantly below average in several of those categories. Although voting to recommend retention, the Commission did find it necessary to address concerns regarding Judge Hansen’s demeanor. The Commission and Judge Hansen developed a performance improvement plan to address these issues. Recommendation: In making its recommendation, the Commission considered the results of surveys from 38 attorneys and 140 non-attorneys, a self-evaluation by the judge, comments received at a public hearing, courtroom observations, transcripts of her decisions and orders, and an interview with Judge Hansen before the Commission. The survey results show a combined 86% of attorney respondents recommended retention; 94% of non-attorney respondents recommended retention.
- 2004 retention cycleTrial Court · El Paso · El PasoMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 75.6% yes140,580 yes · 45,267 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2004 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2004 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a vote of nine to zero, recommends that Judge Karla J. Hansen BE RETAINED. Judge Hansen was appointed as an El Paso County Court Judge in August 2001. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Hansen served as a part-time Colorado Springs Municipal Court Judge and had an active law practice specializing in the areas of criminal defense, divorce, and guardian ad litem advocacy. She also served as a Fourth Judicial District Deputy District Attorney from 1986 to 1994. Judge Hansen is a graduate of the University of Utah Law School, and is active in the community through her church. Judge Hansen is committed to improving the efficiency of the legal process to better serve the citizenry. Attorney questionnaires received by the Commission rate Judge Hansen high in the areas of case management, communications, punctuality, and giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. Of the attorney responses received, 78% strongly recommended to retain Judge Hansen. Non-attorney responses rate Judge Hansen high in the areas of demeanor, diligence, neutrality, and the application of the law. Of the non-attorney responses received, 90% voted to strongly or somewhat recommend retention.
Surveys & reports
- 2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Hansen: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 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. 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 Karla J. Hansen received an overall combined average grade of 3.46 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.59, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.42 [not shown below]. Judge Hansen Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.46 3.33 3.59 Sample Size -- 116 252 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Hansen’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 Hansen Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2011 3.47 3.36 61 3.57 162 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.47 3.30 55 3.64 90 Overall 3.46 3.33 116 3.59 252 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 that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.81, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.27. 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 Hansen’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 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Hansen Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.92 128 51% 3.24 124 49% 3.81 3.27 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Karla J. Hansen (Sample Size 116) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Sample Size = 116 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 67% 14% 3% 1% 0% 15% 3.73 3.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 73% 18% 5% 1% 1% 3% 3.66 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 66% 18% 2% 0% 1% 14% 3.71 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 23% 12% 2% 0% 4% 3.47 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.64 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 70% 14% 11% 1% 2% 3% 3.54 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 59% 16% 12% 7% 4% 3% 3.22 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 17% 13% 9% 5% 18% 2.89 3.00 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 60% 14% 11% 7% 1% 7% 3.34 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.25 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 18% 14% 2% 1% 3% 3.44 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 45% 14% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.36 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 59% 22% 7% 6% 4% 2% 3.29 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 41% 22% 19% 7% 9% 2% 2.81 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 48% 15% 14% 10% 12% 2% 2.79 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 60% 12% 15% 4% 5% 5% 3.25 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.04 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 54% 18% 15% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 63% 16% 10% 2% 3% 6% 3.44 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 59% 17% 8% 3% 0% 14% 3.52 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.37 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 3.32 * 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 24% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 33% 30% Completely neutral 41% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 1% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 1% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 54% 53% Recommend retain 14% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% 9% Recommend not retain 12% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 7% Total Retain 68% 77% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 24% 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.33 Overall Average Grade 3.32 3.64 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.73 case after trial. 3.54 3.66 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.47 3.71 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.47 3.37 3.25 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.54 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.30 3.22 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 2.89 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.00 3.34 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.31 when circumstances are similar. 3.40 Q3. Overall Communication 3.43 3.44 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.52 the proceedings. 3.36 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Karla J. Hansen 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.04 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.29 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.42 2.81 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.79 neutral manner. 3.18 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.37 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.15 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.44 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.52 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. 24% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 33% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 41% Completely Neutral 50% 1% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 1% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained or not retained in office? 54% Strongly recommend retain 53% 14% Recommend retain 24% 8% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Hansen Judges* Total Retain 68% 77% 12% Neither 8% 9% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 24% 14% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Karla J. Hansen (Sample Size 252) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Sample Size = 252 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 14% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3.53 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 72% 14% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3.51 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 14% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3.54 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 64% 19% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3.42 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 11% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3.56 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 74% 10% 3% 2% 5% 6% 3.56 3.45 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 58% 8% 1% 3% 2% 28% 3.61 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 73% 12% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.61 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.59 3.50 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 75% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 12% 4% 2% 1% 4% 3.67 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 10% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3.72 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.66 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 74% 13% 3% 2% 2% 6% 3.67 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 12% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3.70 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 68% 10% 4% 2% 1% 15% 3.69 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 74% 10% 3% 2% 2% 10% 3.67 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 75% 12% 3% 2% 2% 6% 3.65 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 13% 3% 3% 4% 11% 3.50 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 60% 9% 3% 2% 3% 23% 3.56 3.45 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 69% 9% 3% 3% 5% 12% 3.51 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.52 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.59 3.52 * 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 12% 13% Competely neutral 84% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.15 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 11% 13% Competely neutral 81% 74% Lenient sentencing total 9% 13% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.09 0.10 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 71% 70% Recommend retain 15% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% 7% Recommend not retain 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 7% Total Retain 86% 84% Neither 6% 7% Total Not Retain 7% 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.59 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.50 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.53 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.51 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.54 manner. 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.42 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.59 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.50 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.56 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.56 case without bias. 3.45 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.61 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.61 their case. 3.54 3.66 Q3. Overall Communications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.60 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.67 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.72 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Karla J. Hansen 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.68 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.67 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.70 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.69 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.67 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.65 little wasted time. 3.48 3.52 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.45 3.50 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.56 possible outside pressure. 3.45 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.51 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.15 Karla J. Hansen 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.09 Karla J. Hansen 0.10 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. Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained or not retained in office? 71% Strongly recommend retain 70% 15% Recommend retain 14% 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 7% Judge Hansen Judges* 1% Total Retain 86% 84% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 6% 7% Total Not Retain 7% 10% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Karla J. Hansen All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 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 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 an interim evaluation in 2015 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 2015. 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. 15 ## 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. 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 2015 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 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 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. 16 ## 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 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% 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 County Judges [Please Note: Due to insufficient survey responses, the non-attorney results for Judge Ruth M. Acheson are not included in this report.] 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 due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 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 2015. 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 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. 17 ## Page 21 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 receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The 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 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. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall 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 Hansen 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. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Karla J. Hansen 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 136 48 47 0 41 46.1% Defense Attorneys 148 73 17 0 58 44.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 40 9 15 0 16 64.0% Total Attorneys 326 131 79 0 116 47.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 663 397 192 22 52 11.0% Law Enforcement 16 10 2 1 3 21.4% Defendant 796 383 360 7 46 10.6% Civil Litigant 80 52 12 7 9 13.2% Witness 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Jurors 275 127 17 3 128 49.6% Employees, including Interpreters 13 1 4 0 8 88.9% Probation Officers 14 5 4 0 5 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 1859 976 591 40 252 19.9% Grand Total: 2185 1107 670 40 368 24.3% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## 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 1359 477 428 0 454 48.8% Defense Attorneys 5458 1988 1427 0 2043 50.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 17 5 4 0 8 61.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 199 66 48 0 85 56.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1109 325 393 0 391 54.6% Total Attorneys 8142 2861 2300 0 2981 51.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 180 101 60 12 7 5.8% Witness 3505 2059 941 134 371 14.5% Other 336 221 82 9 24 9.4% Law Enforcement 3358 2551 368 73 366 12.2% Defendant 15702 7544 6825 179 1154 13.0% Civil Litigant 4907 2614 1583 103 607 18.3% Witness 629 340 133 17 139 28.0% Other 9 8 0 0 1 11.1% Jurors 4706 2082 550 95 1979 47.6% Employees, including Interpreters 400 106 49 0 245 69.8% Probation Officers 332 92 82 0 158 63.2% Total Non-attorneys 34064 17718 10673 622 5051 21.6% Grand Total: 42206 20579 12973 622 8032 27.5% * 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 2995 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% 15% 5% 2% 1% 25% 3.54 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 21% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.47 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 51% 19% 7% 2% 2% 19% 3.43 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 23% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 18% 10% 6% 6% 22% 3.00 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 52% 23% 10% 3% 3% 10% 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 17% 7% 3% 2% 27% 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 18% 11% 6% 6% 1% 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 21% 10% 4% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 53% 22% 9% 3% 4% 9% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 16% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 * 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim 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 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 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? Strongly recommend retain 53% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 77% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5051 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 17% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.54 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.48 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 16% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 14% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 14% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.45 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 11% 3% 2% 4% 26% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.50 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 14% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 18% 7% 3% 2% 4% 3.48 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.54 4d.Being prepared for cases. 70% 14% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.58 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 19% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% 12% 5% 2% 4% 18% 3.45 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 14% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 * 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. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim 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 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 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 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 13% Average 0.1 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 84% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim 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 the 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 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 retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain 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 the 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 the judge. 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 their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences 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 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. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 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 - 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Karla J. Hansen, 138 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 98 agreed they had worked with Judge Hansen enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 98 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.49 Attorneys 3.21 Total Non-Attorneys 3.63 Juror 3.94 Non-Attorney Other* 2.96 Table 1 Judge Karla J. Hansen Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.49 3.21 3.63 3.94 2.96 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 81% Attorneys 68% Total Non-Attorneys 87% Juror 95% Non-Attorney Other 69% Table 2 Judge Karla J. Hansen Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 81% 68% 87% 95% 69% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Karla J. Hansen Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.64 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.13 3.55 3.90 2.84 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.16 3.70 3.93 3.20 Diligence 3.28 3.72 3.95 3.21 Demeanor 2.83 3.54 3.97 2.61 Fairness N/A 3.64 3.96 2.93 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 173 11 34 28% 24% Total Non- 1062 229 64 11% 31% Attorneys Staff 4 0 1 25% 0% Jurors 273 0 44 16% 2% Other Non- 785 229 19 8% 60% 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hansen, 45 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 34 agreed they had worked with Judge Hansen enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 34 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 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 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 42% 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 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 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 October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 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 using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Karla J. Hansen be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Karla J. Hansen Total Retain 68% Neither 15% Total Not Retain 18% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 56% 60% 40% 18% 15% 20% 12% 12% 8% 6% 8% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Hansen All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hansen on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.64 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.32 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.70 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.79 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.81 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 6 Case Management Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 34 Hansen Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 76% 18% -- -- -- 6% 3.81 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 82% 15% 3% -- -- -- 3.79 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 68% 29% -- -- -- 3% 3.70 3.46 Setting reasonable schedules for 59% 24% 9% 9% -- -- 3.32 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.64 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hansen on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.13 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.09 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.73 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.32 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.24 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.38 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 34 Hansen Judges Being able to identify and analyze 62% 24% 6% 9% -- -- 3.38 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 56% 26% 3% 15% -- -- 3.24 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 66% 10% 10% 7% 3% 3% 3.32 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 38% 29% 6% 12% 12% 3% 2.73 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 56% 15% 18% 6% 6% -- 3.09 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.13 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hansen on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.16 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.40 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.24 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 8 Communications Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 34 Hansen Judges Making sure all participants 56% 26% 6% 9% 3% -- 3.24 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 47% 18% 3% 3% 3% 26% 3.40 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.16 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hansen on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 2.83 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.59 3.39 Treating participants with respect 2.68 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.24 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 9 Demeanor Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 34 Hansen Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 56% 24% 9% 12% -- -- 3.24 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 38% 24% 18% 9% 12% -- 2.68 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 41% 24% 9% 6% 21% -- 2.59 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 2.83 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hansen on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.28 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.47 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.42 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.06 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 10 Diligence Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 34 Hansen Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 53% 18% 15% 12% 3% -- 3.06 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 65% 15% 12% 6% -- 3% 3.42 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 62% 9% 15% 3% -- 12% 3.47 3.37 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.28 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Hansen in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 54% 39% 36% 40% 28% 25% 20% 11% 6% 1% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Hansen All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Karla J. Hansen, 93 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 64 agreed they had worked with Judge Hansen enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 64 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. 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 October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th 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 October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 16 ## Page 19 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Karla J. Hansen Total Retain 87% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% Figure 10 100% 80% 69% 71% 60% 40% 18% 16% 20% 6% 5% 3% 6% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Hansen All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.50 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.56 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 12 Demeanor Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 64 Hansen Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 83% 6% 2% 5% 5% -- 3.58 3.61 Treating participants with respect 84% 3% 3% 3% 6% -- 3.56 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 82% 5% 3% 2% 8% -- 3.52 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 80% 5% 3% -- 9% 3% 3.50 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.54 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.64 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.68 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.58 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.56 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 13 Fairness Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 64 Hansen Judges Giving participants an opportunity 88% 5% 2% -- 6% -- 3.67 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 81% 6% 2% 3% 6% 2% 3.56 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 48% 2% 2% -- 5% 44% 3.58 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 80% 8% 2% -- 5% 6% 3.68 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.64 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.75 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.71 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 14 Communications Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 63 Hansen Judges Making sure all participants 83% 8% 3% 3% 3% -- 3.63 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 87% 5% 3% 2% 3% -- 3.71 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 87% 6% 3% -- 3% -- 3.75 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.70 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.72 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.71 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.72 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.73 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.76 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.65 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 15 Diligence Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 63 Hansen Judges Beginning court on time 81% 10% 3% -- 5% 2% 3.65 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 89% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3.76 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 87% 5% 2% -- 5% 2% 3.73 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 84% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3.72 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 86% 8% 2% 2% 3% -- 3.71 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.72 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.55 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.64 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.49 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.48 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hansen Table 16 Application of Law Judge Karla J. Hansen All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 61 Hansen Judges Giving reasons for rulings 70% 8% 8% 2% 5% 8% 3.48 3.56 Willing to make decision without 63% 6% 3% 3% 5% 19% 3.49 3.54 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 77% 8% 2% 3% 3% 6% 3.64 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.55 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Hansen is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Hansen is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 84% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 8% 4% 5% 7% 2% 5% 2% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Hansen All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Hansen are. If you feel Judge Hansen generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 84% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 4% 2% 2% 5% 7% 2% 4% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Hansen All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Karla J. Hansen 25
- 2012 cycle
- 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee KKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaannsseenn 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Hansen: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Karla J. Hansen May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, county judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.45--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.56, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.15, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.60, Judge Karla J. Hansen’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.38. Judge Hansen Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.38 3.15 3.60 Sample Size - 101 288 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Hansen from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Hansen’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Hansen Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.31 3.15 15 3.46 101 2008 3.07 2.61 9 3.53 55 2009 3.41 3.13 36 3.68 76 2010 3.55 3.30 41 3.80 56 Overall 3.38 3.15 101 3.60 288 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 54%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of 1 ## Page 5 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 Hansen’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2007 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges. Judge Hansen Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2007 3.90 33 33% 3.25 68 67% 3.82 3.30 2008 3.82 38 69% 2.89 17 31% 3.82 3.26 2009 3.81 63 83% 2.91 13 17% 3.83 3.22 2010 3.86 50 89% 3.35 6 11% 3.85 3.25 All Yrs. 3.84 184 64% 3.15 104 36% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Hansen’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaannsseenn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110011)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Sample Size = 101 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 55% 20% 4% 0% 0% 21% 3.65 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 13% 1% 0% 2% 3.47 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 50% 25% 8% 1% 0% 16% 3.48 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 26% 12% 5% 0% 4% 3.33 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.48 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 28% 14% 4% 0% 2% 3.31 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 47% 17% 20% 8% 2% 6% 3.05 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 32% 15% 20% 9% 5% 18% 2.74 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 25% 13% 4% 6% 8% 3.05 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.04 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 46% 35% 12% 4% 2% 1% 3.20 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 38% 19% 9% 5% 1% 28% 3.21 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.21 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 52% 19% 20% 3% 6% 0% 3.08 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 35% 27% 17% 9% 12% 0% 2.64 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 36% 22% 18% 12% 12% 0% 2.58 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 49% 18% 17% 3% 5% 8% 3.12 3.27 Overall Demeanor 2.86 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 45% 24% 18% 6% 4% 3% 3.03 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 26% 13% 2% 1% 7% 3.33 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 49% 17% 10% 4% 1% 19% 3.35 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.24 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.15 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Judges Sample Size = 101 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 46% 28% Completely neutral 23% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 1% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 46% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 24% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 16% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 7% Total Retain 70% 88% Total Not Retain 30% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 44% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 23% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 15% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 13% 6% Total Retain 67% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 5% Total Not Retain 28% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.15 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.48 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.65 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.47 proceedings. 3.44 3.48 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.33 3.39 3.04 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.31 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.05 3.16 2.74 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.05 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.21 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.20 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.21 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Judges Judge Karla J. Hansen 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.86 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.08 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 2.64 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.58 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.12 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 3.24 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.03 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.33 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.35 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 26% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 23% Completely Neutral 50% 1% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 4% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Karla J. Hansen All County Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 46% Strongly recommend retain 71% 24% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All Cnty Judge Hansen Judges 16% Total Retain 70% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 30% 13% 6% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 44% Strongly recommend retain 68% 23% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty 5% Judge Hansen Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 67% 84% Undecided or DK 5% 5% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 28% 12% 6% 13% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Karla J. Hansen All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaannsseenn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 228)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Sample Size = 288 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 20% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3.59 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 18% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3.56 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 17% 6% 3% 3% 5% 3.47 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.55 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 17% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3.58 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 71% 16% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3.56 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 15% 2% 1% 3% 28% 3.51 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 71% 17% 4% 0% 2% 5% 3.65 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.58 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 16% 5% 1% 1% 3% 3.65 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 75% 17% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3.69 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 13% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3.72 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.69 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 71% 16% 3% 2% 1% 7% 3.64 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 17% 3% 0% 1% 4% 3.73 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 65% 13% 4% 2% 1% 14% 3.63 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 68% 15% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.62 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 18% 5% 2% 2% 5% 3.55 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 5% 2% 2% 11% 3.52 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 59% 13% 2% 3% 2% 21% 3.56 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 2% 10% 3.59 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.56 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.60 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Judges Sample Size = 288 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% 12% Competely neutral 82% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 4% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.26 0.12 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% 12% Competely neutral 81% 77% Lenient sentencing total 6% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.32 0.06 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 92% 92% Total Not Retain 7% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 77% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 5% Total Retain 87% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 8% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.60 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.55 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.59 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.56 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.47 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.58 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.58 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.56 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.51 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.65 or her case. 3.59 3.69 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.65 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.69 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.72 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Judges Judge Karla J. Hansen 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.63 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.64 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.73 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.63 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.62 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.55 little wasted time. 3.50 3.56 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.52 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.56 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.59 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.26 Karla J. Hansen 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.32 Karla J. Hansen 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Karla J. Hansen All County Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Karla J. Hansen All County Judges Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 82% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% All Cnty Judge Hansen Judges Total Retain 92% 92% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 7% 8% 2% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 6% All Cnty Undecided 8% Judge Hansen Judges Total Retain 87% 85% 2% Undecided 6% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Karla J. Hansen All County Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 21 ## Page 25 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Hansen is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Karla J. Hansen 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 82 57 3 0 22 27.8% Defense Attorneys 197 130 3 0 64 33.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 13 8 1 0 4 33.3% Other Attorneys Civil 42 30 1 0 11 26.8% Total Attorneys 334 225 8 0 101 31.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 158 89 53 6 10 9.5% Other 212 137 62 0 13 8.7% Law Enforcement 290 190 69 2 29 13.1% Defendant 484 305 132 8 39 11.1% Civil Litigant 147 102 33 0 12 10.5% Witness 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Jurors 407 183 24 11 184 48.0% Employees 5 2 1 2 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 1705 1009 374 29 288 21.6% Grand Total: 2039 1234 382 29 389 23.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 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 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 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. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 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 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 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 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee KKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaannsseenn 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Hansen: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 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. 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. Karla J. Hansen March 26, 2012 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, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 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 Karla J. Hansen received an overall combined average grade of 3.43 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.24, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.62, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.45 [not shown below]. Judge Hansen Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.43 3.24 3.62 Sample Size - 147 349 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (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 Hansen’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Hansen Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 3.07 2.61 9 3.53 55 2009 3.41 3.13 36 3.68 76 2010 3.55 3.30 41 3.80 56 2011 3.47 3.36 61 3.57 162 Overall 3.43 3.24 147 3.63 349 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 standing for retention in 2012 is 3.85, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.29. 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 Hansen’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 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Hansen Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Hansen Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.86 227 65% 3.18 122 35% 3.85 3.29 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaannsseenn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 114477)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Sample Size = 147 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 60% 19% 4% 0% 0% 17% 3.67 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 20% 11% 1% 1% 1% 3.53 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 58% 21% 5% 1% 0% 15% 3.60 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 22% 13% 5% 0% 3% 3.36 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.54 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 19% 13% 3% 1% 1% 3.43 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 55% 16% 18% 8% 2% 1% 3.15 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 16% 18% 8% 5% 20% 2.78 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 21% 13% 4% 3% 8% 3.21 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 53% 27% 12% 3% 1% 2% 3.31 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 40% 17% 10% 3% 1% 29% 3.27 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.29 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 56% 19% 14% 5% 5% 1% 3.17 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 40% 25% 18% 7% 10% 1% 2.79 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 41% 18% 17% 12% 11% 1% 2.68 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 14% 18% 3% 4% 6% 3.20 3.23 Overall Demeanor 2.96 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 48% 21% 20% 6% 3% 2% 3.06 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 58% 21% 11% 3% 1% 6% 3.40 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 15% 11% 3% 1% 16% 3.43 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.30 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.24 3.31 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Sample Size = 147 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 39% 30% Completely neutral 30% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 2% 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 3% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 53% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 19% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 15% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 7% Total Retain 72% 86% Total Not Retain 29% 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 50% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 18% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 14% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 13% 7% Total Retain 68% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 5% Total Not Retain 27% 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.24 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.54 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.67 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.53 proceedings. 3.44 3.60 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.36 3.40 3.14 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 3.43 relevant facts. 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.15 3.15 2.78 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.21 when circumstances are similar. 3.28 3.29 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.31 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.27 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.31 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Judges Judge Karla J. Hansen 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.96 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.29 3.17 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 2.79 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.36 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.68 in a neutral manner. 3.19 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.30 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.28 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.06 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.40 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.43 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. 26% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 39% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 30% Completely Neutral 49% 2% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 3% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 53% Strongly recommend retain 70% 19% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Retention Judge Hansen Judges 15% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 72% 86% 7% Total Not Retain 29% 14% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain 66% 18% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Including Und/DK Respondents 4% Undecided or DK All Cnty 5% Retention Judge Hansen Judges 14% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 68% 81% 6% Undecided or DK 4% 5% Total Not Retain 27% 13% 13% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaannsseenn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 334499)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Sample Size = 349 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3.58 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 75% 15% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 73% 17% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3.58 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 3% 4% 3.47 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 76% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 75% 14% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3.58 3.53 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 55% 12% 1% 2% 2% 28% 3.62 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 15% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.67 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.62 3.57 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 15% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3.67 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3.71 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3.74 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 76% 13% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3.66 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 79% 13% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3.72 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 12% 3% 2% 1% 13% 3.68 3.59 4d. Being prepared for cases. 73% 14% 2% 1% 3% 7% 3.66 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 16% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3.61 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.67 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 16% 4% 2% 3% 9% 3.54 3.51 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 10% 3% 1% 3% 22% 3.59 3.53 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 69% 12% 4% 2% 3% 11% 3.58 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Karla J. Hansen Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Sample Size = 349 Judges 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 12% 12% Competely neutral 82% 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.19 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 14% 12% Competely neutral 81% 78% Lenient sentencing total 8% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.25 0.14 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 85% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 5% Total Retain 93% 92% Total Not Retain 8% 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 80% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 7% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 5% Total Retain 87% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 8% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.62 Overall Average Grade 3.58 3.56 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.58 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.58 manner. 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.47 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.48 3.62 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.57 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.61 heard. 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.58 case without bias. 3.53 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.62 themselves. 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.67 or her case. 3.60 3.71 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.67 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.71 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.74 can hear what's being said. 3.71 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Judges Judge Karla J. Hansen 12 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.67 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.66 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.72 proceedings. 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.68 3.59 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.66 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.61 little wasted time. 3.52 3.57 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.52 3.54 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.51 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.59 possible outside pressure. 3.53 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.58 relevant facts. 3.52 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.19 Karla J. Hansen 0.15 All County Retention 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 0.25 Karla J. Hansen 0.14 All County Retention 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. Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Judges 13 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Karla J. Hansen Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 85% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 8% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 8% All Cnty Retention 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Hansen Judges 3% Total Retain 93% 92% Total Not Retain 8% 8% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 6% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 8% All Cnty Retention 2% Judge Hansen Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 87% 84% 2% Undecided 6% 8% 5% Total Not Retain 7% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Karla J. Hansen All County Retention Judges 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: 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. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process: Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention). The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 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 16 ## Page 20 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 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. c. 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. 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. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/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 2012 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 17 ## Page 21 percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/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 Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. 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 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. 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. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process: Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. 18 ## Page 22 As stated above, 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 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. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/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 2012 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. 19 ## Page 23 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 percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/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 Trial 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. 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 Hansen 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 Karla J. Hansen 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 137 78 22 0 37 32.2% Defense Attorneys 252 151 11 0 90 37.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 7 6 0 0 1 14.3% Other Attorneys Civil 48 27 3 0 18 40.0% Total Attorneys 445 262 36 0 147 35.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 570 312 197 24 37 9.9% Law Enforcement 28 15 7 2 4 19.0% Defendant 915 478 366 14 57 10.4% Civil Litigant 56 39 7 2 8 16.3% Witness 4 2 0 0 2 50.0% Jurors 491 224 28 12 227 49.0% Employees, including Interpreters 18 3 5 2 8 61.5% Probation Officers 16 6 4 0 6 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 2098 1079 614 56 349 23.5% Grand Total: 2543 1341 650 56 496 26.2% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2049 1103 289 0 657 37.3% Defense Attorneys 8880 5065 774 0 3041 37.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 12 7 1 0 4 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 441 266 30 0 145 35.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1346 701 191 0 454 39.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 24 8 7 1 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 12752 7150 1292 1 4309 37.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 277 159 90 15 13 7.0% Witness 4435 2510 1368 182 375 12.2% Other 549 334 156 20 39 9.9% Law Enforcement 3638 2574 457 92 515 16.2% Defendant 24165 11842 9981 329 2013 14.2% Civil Litigant 4982 2497 1744 118 623 19.2% Witness 1544 856 331 44 313 25.8% Other 78 50 20 2 6 10.3% Jurors 11310 5027 1133 268 4882 48.0% Employees, including Interpreters 666 182 95 12 377 66.0% Probation Officers 415 109 97 5 204 64.2% Total Non-attorneys 52059 26140 15472 1087 9360 25.6% Grand Total: 64811 33290 16764 1088 13669 28.4% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4309 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 17% 5% 1% 1% 25% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.41 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 5% 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 24% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 12% 6% 4% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 18% 10% 6% 5% 23% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 17% 7% 3% 2% 30% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 17% 9% 4% 4% 1% 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 20% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 22% 9% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 16% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4309 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 66% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 81% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 9360 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.56 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.60 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.53 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.53 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.57 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is 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% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 66% 20% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.49 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.69 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 4% 2% 2% 13% 3.59 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 17% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.51 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 12% 4% 2% 3% 18% 3.53 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 9360 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 12% Competely neutral 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.14 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 84% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 92% Total Not Retain 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% Somewhat recommend retain 7% Undecided or Don't Know 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% Total Not Retain 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 31 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 32 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. Makings 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 33 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 he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 34 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom 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 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 35 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
- 2008 cycle
- 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State off Colorado LLogo COOMMISSIOON ON JUUDICIALL PERFORRMANCEE KKKKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaaaannsseenn 22008 Juudicial PPerformmance Suurvey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO. 80901 Dear Judge Hansen: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2008 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 57,000 people statewide who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 12,400 people responded—3,084 to the attorney survey and 9,317 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. • Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. • Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen April, 30 2008 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3388)) ## Page 5 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 33..33 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 33.55 Management 3.4 3.2 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.7 3.1 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.3 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAvveerraaggee GGrraaddee Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 6 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.5 3.4 3.6 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 33.66 1b. Beginning court on time 3.4 3.5 3.5 1c. Allotting appropriate amount 3.4 of time for cases 3.4 3.6 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.5 according to schedule 3.5 2.8 1e. [Civil only] Assisting parties to 3.1 reach agreement 3.0 3.7 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.5 3.4 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.8 1h. Promptly issuing a decision 3.6 on the case after trial 3.5 3.4 1i. Setting reasonable schedules 3.5 for cases 33.44 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 7 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.2 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 LLaaww 3.3 3.2 2a. Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 and arguments 3.3 3.1 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.2 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 2.6 2d. Willing to reconsider error in 2.9 ffaacctt oorr llaaww 2.9 3.2 2e. Having knowledge of relevant 3.3 substantive law 3.3 3.5 2f. Having knowledge of rules of 3.4 pprroocceedduurree aanndd eevviiddeennccee 3.4 3.3 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 3.0 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the 3.4 circumstances are similar 3.3 3.2 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.4 2j. Making decisions without fear 3.5 ooff bbeeiinngg aappppeeaalleedd 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 8 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Communications 3.6 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.7 3.7 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.7 3.6 3b. Making sure all participants 3.6 understand the proceedings 3.6 3.6 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 9 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Demeanor 3.1 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.3 4a. Giving proceedings a sense 3.5 of dignity 3.5 2.8 4b. Treating everyone involved 3.5 politely 33.44 2.6 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 2.8 4d. Treating participants with 3.5 respect 3.5 2.9 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 3.3 4f. Being consistent in [his/her] 3.5 behavior 3.5 22.99 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.4 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.4 3.2 4h. Giving all participants an 3.6 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.2 44ii. CCoonnssiisstteennttllyy aappppllyyiinngg llaawwss 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.7 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.7 3.0 44kk. TTrreeaattiinngg pprroo ssee ppaarrttiieess ffaaiirrllyy 33.66 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 10 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Diligence 3.3 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.4 55aa. MMaakkiinngg ttoouugghh ddeecciissiioonnss wwhheenn 3.4 necessary 3.4 3.1 5b. Using good judgment in apppplication of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.3 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared 3.4 for [[his/her]] cases 3.4 3.4 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicated and time consuming 33.55 3.2 5e. Providing prompt access to 3.4 the court in emergency matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 11 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Hansen is toward the defense or prosecution? Karla J. Hansen 1.8 All County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 12 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Hansen's sentences? Karla J. Hansen 1.6 All County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.3 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 13 Karla J. Hansen AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Retention Recommendation 110000%% 90% 80% 77%77% 7744%% 7733%% 70% 60% 53% 5500%% 50% 40% 33% 32% 30% 20% 13%13% 12%12% 10% 8% 8% 6% 6%6% 6% 5% 5%5% 5%5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 14 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 54% 57% B 32% 18% 18% C 3% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 1% No Grade 11% 23% 21% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 15 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 63% 58% 62% B 34% 28% 25% C 0% 9% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 3% 1% 2% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 16 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 47% 58% 56% B 44% 29% 28% C 0% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 8% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 17 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 58% 58% B 34% 30% 28% C 0% 6% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 11% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 18 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 12% 22% 23% B 20% 18% 17% C 16% 6% 8% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 48% 51% 47% Average 2.8 3.1 3.0 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 19 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 73% 67% 66% B 11% 22% 22% C 11% 6% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 1% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 20 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 39% 42% 44% B 34% 19% 21% C 5% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 21% 30% 24% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 21 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 47% 48% B 13% 15% 16% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 32% 32% 29% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 22 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 45% 55% 54% B 34% 26% 26% C 3% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 16% 9% 8% Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 23 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 34% 53% 54% B 42% 25% 25% C 18% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% 5% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 24 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 55% 56% B 38% 25% 25% C 19% 9% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.1 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 25 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 12% 20% 27% B 19% 12% 16% C 4% 4% 6% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 65% 60% 47% Average 3.2 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 26 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 19% 26% 27% B 22% 17% 18% C 17% 9% 9% D 8% 5% 5% Fail 6% 4% 4% No Grade 28% 40% 38% Average 2.6 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade C+ B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 27 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 51% 54% B 34% 29% 28% C 16% 8% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 28 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 49% 57% 60% B 43% 25% 24% C 3% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 29 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 58% 58% B 36% 25% 24% C 17% 8% 8% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 30 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 31% 44% 36% B 22% 20% 18% C 13% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 28% 26% 37% Average 3.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 31 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 55% 54% B 18% 20% 20% C 16% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 8% 12% 14% Average 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 32 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 54% 55% B 29% 21% 20% C 5% 5% 6% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 11% 16% 16% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 33 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 78% 76% B 26% 18% 18% C 0% 3% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 34 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 63% 71% 71% B 34% 22% 21% C 0% 4% 5% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 35 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 77% 76% B 29% 19% 19% C 0% 3% 3% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 36 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 69% 69% B 29% 20% 20% C 16% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23 ## Page 37 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 69% 69% B 26% 17% 17% C 13% 6% 7% D 11% 4% 3% Fail 8% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 2.8 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 24 ## Page 38 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 24% 56% 55% B 29% 22% 22% C 26% 10% 10% D 8% 4% 4% Fail 8% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 4% Average 2.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25 ## Page 39 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 39% 68% 68% B 32% 19% 18% C 13% 6% 7% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 11% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 2.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26 ## Page 40 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 45% 62% 64% B 26% 21% 20% C 8% 8% 8% D 13% 5% 4% Fail 8% 3% 4% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 2.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27 ## Page 41 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 51% 64% 64% B 30% 22% 21% C 11% 6% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 4% Average 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 28 ## Page 42 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 47% 63% 64% B 24% 21% 20% C 11% 7% 7% D 11% 4% 4% Fail 8% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 29 ## Page 43 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 70% 70% B 39% 20% 19% C 16% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.2 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30 ## Page 44 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 45% 60% 59% B 26% 20% 21% C 18% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 8% 6% 6% Average 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31 ## Page 45 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 60% 64% B 21% 14% 12% C 0% 4% 3% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 16% 20% 19% Average 3.7 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32 ## Page 46 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 41% 55% 51% B 16% 14% 11% C 8% 4% 3% D 8% 2% 1% Fail 5% 1% 1% No Grade 22% 24% 33% Average 3.0 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33 ## Page 47 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 51% 53% B 26% 23% 22% C 3% 7% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 15% 13% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34 ## Page 48 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 42% 54% 54% B 34% 25% 26% C 13% 9% 9% D 8% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 5% 4% Average 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35 ## Page 49 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 51% 52% 56% B 24% 23% 24% C 11% 8% 8% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 12% 9% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36 ## Page 50 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 45% 51% 54% B 21% 17% 18% C 3% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 26% 21% 19% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37 ## Page 51 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 24% 38% 39% B 24% 14% 14% C 0% 4% 4% D 3% 2% 1% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 47% 41% 40% Average 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38 ## Page 52 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Hansen is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 12% 4% 3% ⇑ 4 15% 5% 4% 3 12% 7% 7% 2 12% 11% 10% 1 8% 15% 14% 0 Neutral 38% 53% 53% -1 4% 3% 4% -2 0% 1% 2% -3 0% 1% 2% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 0% Average 1.8 0.9 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39 ## Page 53 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Hansen are? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 7% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 15% 3% 3% 3 11% 5% 4% 2 11% 8% 8% 1 19% 11% 10% 0 Appropriate 30% 63% 60% -1 0% 4% 4% -2 7% 2% 3% -3 0% 2% 3% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 1% Average 1.6 0.5 0.3 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40 ## Page 54 Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 53% 77% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 33% 13% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 6% 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 8% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn--AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 114400)) ## Page 56 Karla J. Hansen NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 QQ11. OOvveerraallll DDeemmeeaannoorr 33.55 3.6 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.5 3.6 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.7 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.6 3.6 Q5. Overall Application of 3.4 Law 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAverage GGradde Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 57 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.6 33.66 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.6 1b. Treating participants politely 3.5 and with respect 3.6 3.6 1c. Conducting [his/her] 3.5 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.6 3.5 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.4 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 58 Karla J. Hansen NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Fairness 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.5 3.6 3.6 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.6 2b. Treating those involved with 3.5 the case without bias 3.5 3.5 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.5 3.7 2d. Giving each side enough 3.5 time to present his or her case 33.66 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 59 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.7 3.7 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.7 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.7 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.7 hear what's being said 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 60 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.6 3.7 44a. BBegiinniing courtt on ttiime 33.44 3.4 3.8 4b. Maintaining appropriate 33..66 conttroll over proceeddiings 3.7 3.6 4c. Setting reasonable 3.5 sscchheedduulleess ffoorr ccaasseess 3.6 3.6 4d. Being prepared for [his/her] 3.6 cases 3.6 3.6 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.5 little wasted time 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 61 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.6 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.5 3.6 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.5 3.6 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.5 outside pressure 3.5 3.6 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 33.55 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 62 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Hansen is toward the defense or prosecution? Karla J. Hansen 0.3 All County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 63 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Hansen's sentences? Karla J. Hansen 0.1 All County Judges 0.0 All Trial Judges 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 64 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 85% 81% 80% 80% 78% 74% 72% 70% 60% 5500%% 40% 30% 20% 14% 13% 10% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 65 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 69% 73% B 17% 19% 18% C 4% 6% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 2% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 66 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 72% 76% B 18% 16% 14% C 4% 5% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 67 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 70% 74% B 17% 16% 14% C 4% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 4% 2% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 68 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 65% 65% 69% B 20% 18% 17% C 4% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 3% 5% 4% No Grade 6% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 69 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 72% 75% B 19% 15% 14% C 3% 5% 4% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 70 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 70% 73% B 17% 15% 14% C 3% 4% 4% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 3% 5% 4% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 71 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 52% 49% B 15% 11% 9% C 1% 4% 3% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 21% 27% 35% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 72 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 69% 72% B 17% 15% 14% C 5% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 5% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 73 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 74% 76% B 14% 14% 14% C 6% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 74 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 76% 74% 76% B 15% 17% 16% C 4% 5% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 4% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 75 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 76% 78% B 13% 15% 14% C 4% 5% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 4% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 76 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 59% 61% B 19% 23% 24% C 2% 9% 8% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 7% 4% 4% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 77 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 75% 77% B 20% 16% 15% C 2% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 78 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 59% 62% B 14% 17% 17% C 4% 6% 5% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 15% 13% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 79 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 72% 67% 71% B 12% 15% 14% C 4% 5% 4% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 8% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 80 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 69% 64% 66% B 18% 20% 20% C 4% 7% 7% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 81 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 64% 62% 65% B 12% 16% 16% C 3% 7% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 15% 9% 9% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 82 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 62% 57% 59% B 13% 12% 12% C 1% 4% 4% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 17% 21% 20% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 83 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 72% 64% 66% B 13% 14% 14% C 2% 5% 4% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 10% 10% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 84 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Hansen is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 3% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 2% 2% 1% 3 2% 2% 2% 2 2% 2% 2% 1 6% 5% 5% 0 Neutral 83% 78% 82% -1 0% 3% 3% -2 1% 1% 1% -3 1% 1% 1% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 1% 1% 1% Average 0.3 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 85 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Hansen are? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 2% 3% 2% ⇑ 4 1% 2% 2% 3 1% 2% 2% 2 2% 3% 2% 1 3% 3% 3% 0 Appropriate 82% 73% 76% -1 5% 5% 5% -2 1% 3% 4% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 1% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 1% 2% 1% Average 0.1 0.0 0.0 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 86 Karla J. Hansen Non-Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2006 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 80% 81% 85% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 14% 9% 8% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 1% 3% 2% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 5% 7% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The databases of names and addresses of the people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom were primarily provided by the Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council and the Denver County Courts. These three sources provided name and address data in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Starting in the second quarter of 2007, the data was provided quarterly. Where there were low sample counts, this data was supplemented by contacting district court administrators for additional sample of particular types of potential respondents. The data was then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected— quarterly starting in 2007. Depending on the available number of names and the count of already received surveys for a particular judge, either all or a random sample of names were drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had appeared. Survey: Each person whose name was drawn was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent would be sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent follow-up postcard. If the person did not respond after the follow-up postcard, a second questionnaire and letter were sent and in some instances a second follow-up postcard was sent after the second letter and questionnaire. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney responses, telephone interviews were conducted with attorneys who had not responded to the mailed questionnaires. Over 900 interviews were completed by telephone. 1 ## Page 89 Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2008 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney respondents these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The estimated response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. The true response rates are likely considerably higher than shown because of the relatively high percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed in court. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A similar table showing the response counts and estimated cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 90 Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 841 306 93 2 440 58.8% Defense Attorneys 1,082 341 102 2 637 65.0% Other Attorneys Crmnl 809 418 27 3 361 46.2% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1,395 312 171 13 899 73.4% Other Attorneys Civil 598 280 53 2 263 48.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role 852 289 77 2 484 62.5% Total Attorneys 5,577 1,946 523 24 3,084 61.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 8,170 5,431 1,417 34 1,288 19.1% Defendant 13,787 9,091 3,737 25 934 9.3% Victim 295 222 63 2 8 3.4% Witness 1,886 1,342 453 5 86 6.0% Other 5,396 3,532 1,301 43 520 12.7% Civil Litigant 6,552 4,390 1,109 21 1,032 19.0% Witness 46 31 5 0 10 24.4% Other 59 29 15 0 15 34.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 5,065 2,598 1,843 12 612 19.0% Total Non-attorneys 41,256 26,666 9,943 142 4,505 14.4% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 10,214 4,940 460 22 4,792 49.1% Total Other 10,240 4,946 460 22 4,812 49.2% Total 57,073 33,558 10,926 188 12,401 26.9% 3 ## Page 91 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney respondents and Non-attorney respondents. Within the Attorney and Non-attorney section are subsections of graphs displaying average grades for each section of the questionnaire and each question and tables showing the percentage distribution of grades. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all county judges, and all trial judges for which 2008 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.67 to 3.99 B—= 2.67 to 2.99 C—= 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.66 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for county judges surveyed in 2008, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2008 survey. Projectability: Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%- confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self- selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. 4 ## Page 92 While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often— albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 5 ## Page 93 Karla J. Hansen Responses by Type Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 10 1 2 0 7 87.5% Defense Attorneys 18 6 2 0 10 62.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 10 4 0 0 6 60.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 16 6 3 0 7 53.8% Other Attorneys Civil 7 5 1 0 1 16.7% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 10 2 2 0 6 75.0% Total Attorneys 71 24 10 0 37 39.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 275 190 59 1 25 11.6% Defendant 175 130 33 0 12 8.5% Witness 61 38 22 0 1 2.6% Other 212 142 57 0 13 8.4% Civil Litigant 129 92 29 0 8 8.0% Non-attorneys, Unknown Role Type 92 37 53 0 2 5.1% Total Non-attorneys 944 629 253 1 61 91.0% Others Jurors 167 79 9 0 79 50.0% Total Others 167 79 9 0 79 50.0% Grand Total: 1182 732 272 1 177 19.5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 94 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 95 Commission on Judicial Performance 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ _ JUDGE [NAME] 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Last Name]? _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, _ please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have _ experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the _ number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). _ DK 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge [Last h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name]? i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ DK _ 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 96 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward b. Makings sure all participants understand the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 completely unbiased, circle “0.” c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution d. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Last Name] in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? DK ________________________________________________________ 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even ___________________________________________________________ when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] {Question 3d is asked only regarding district judges.} 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 97 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 JUDGE[NAME] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Last Name]? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please understanding for those who appear place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 98 DK Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Last Name] c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Last Name] ? e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Willing to make decision without regard to 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or _ cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, _ circle “0.” _ _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward _ Defense Neutral Prosecution _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 _ 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next [Last Name] ? question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands _ down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” _ Sentences Appropriate Sentences _ Too Light Sentences Too Harsh _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Back Page
- 2004 cycle
- 2004 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2004 Judicial Performance Survey TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee KKaarrllaa JJ.. HHaannsseenn ## Page 2 March 22, 2004 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen County Judge, 4th Judicial District P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, Co. 80901-2980 Dear Judge Hansen: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2004 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 35,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 10,000 people responded—3,683 to the attorney survey and 6,330 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e as required by the recent rule changes) , each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Karla J. Hansen March 22, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.2 Overall Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.3 3.1 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.2 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.1 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.2 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 5 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.4 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.3 3.4 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.5 during trial 3.5 3.5 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.4 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.5 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.4 1e. Assisting parties to reach 3.1 agreement 3 3.4 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.4 3.3 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 motions 3.2 3.3 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.4 3.2 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 6 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.2 3 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.2 3 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 3.5 2c. Issuing written findings of 3 fact and law 3.1 2.6 2d. Willing to reconsider error 2.9 in fact or law 2.9 3 2e. Having knowledge of 3.2 relevant substantive law 3.2 3.2 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.3 of procedure and evidence 3.3 3 2g. Being able to identify and 3.3 analyze relevant facts 3.3 2h. Issuing consistent 2.4 sentences when the 3.3 circumstances are similar 3.2 2i. Willing to make decision 3.1 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.3 3.2 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 7 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.6 3a. Speaking clearly 3.5 3.5 3.8 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.7 3c. Using understandable 3.6 language 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 8 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.1 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.5 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.1 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.4 2.7 4c. Having empathy with the 3.2 parties involved 3.2 3 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.4 2.9 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.3 3.3 4f. Being consistent in his/her 3.4 behavior 3.3 4g. Conducting his/her 2.9 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.3 3.5 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.1 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.3 and rules 3.3 3.3 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.5 communications 3.6 3.2 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.4 fairly 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 9 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.2 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.2 3.2 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.3 2.9 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.2 3.4 5c. Doing the necessary "homework" and being 3.3 prepared for his/her cases 3.2 5d. Being willing to handle 3.3 cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicatedand time consuming 3.3 3.3 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.4 matters 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 10 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Hansen is toward the defense or prosecution? Karla J. Hansen 1.2 All County 0.8 Judges All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 11 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Hansen's sentences? Karla J. Hansen 1.1 All County 0.5 Judges All Trial Judges 0.4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 12 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 80% 78% 74% 73% 70% 69% 70% 67% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 17% 16% 16% 15% 14% 11% 10% 10% 6%6% 6%6%6% 6% 5% 5% 5%5% 4%4% 4%4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Hansen Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 13 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 51% 51% B 20% 22% 24% C 4% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 32% 19% 17% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 14 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 53% 54% B 44% 30% 29% C 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 8% 3% 4% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 15 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 50% 49% B 32% 31% 30% C 4% 9% 10% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 20% 6% 6% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 16 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 52% 52% 50% B 32% 31% 30% C 4% 9% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 12% 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 17 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 33% 21% 25% B 14% 16% 18% C 10% 8% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 43% 51% 41% Average 3.4 3.1 3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 18 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 59% 58% B 32% 27% 27% C 8% 8% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 4% 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 19 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 36% 41% 39% B 24% 21% 24% C 8% 8% 10% D 4% 3% 4% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 28% 27% 21% Average 3.3 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 20 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 36% 47% 44% B 20% 20% 21% C 4% 6% 7% D 1% 2% Fail 4% 1% 2% No Grade 36% 25% 24% Average 3.3 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 21 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 32% 50% 47% B 40% 29% 30% C 4% 9% 10% D 2% 3% Fail 4% 1% 2% No Grade 20% 9% 8% Average 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 22 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 32% 49% 49% B 24% 27% 27% C 12% 11% 10% D 4% 5% 5% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 24% 6% 6% Average 3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 23 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 51% 51% B 16% 27% 27% C 12% 10% 10% D 4% 4% 5% Fail 8% 1% 2% No Grade 20% 6% 5% Average 3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 24 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 24% 19% 27% B 24% 11% 17% C 8% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 52% 57% 42% Average 3.5 3 3.1 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 25 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 12% 27% 26% B 20% 19% 20% C 11% 11% D 8% 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% 4% No Grade 56% 35% 34% Average 2.6 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade C+ B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 26 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 28% 47% 46% B 40% 30% 31% C 4% 11% 11% D 8% 4% 4% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 16% 6% 5% Average 3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 27 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 52% 52% B 36% 28% 29% C 4% 9% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 12% 5% 5% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 28 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 38% 51% 51% B 21% 28% 28% C 13% 9% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 21% 6% 5% Average 3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 29 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 5% 38% 27% B 25% 23% 17% C 5% 7% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 55% 28% 46% Average 2.4 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 30 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 36% 47% 47% B 20% 23% 23% C 4% 9% 8% D 8% 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 28% 15% 17% Average 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 31 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 32% 49% 48% B 24% 23% 22% C 7% 7% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 36% 17% 18% Average 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 32 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 72% 70% 67% B 20% 21% 23% C 4% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 33 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 60% 66% 64% B 24% 21% 23% C 8% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 8% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 34 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 76% 69% 67% B 16% 21% 24% C 4% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 35 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 56% 64% 63% B 28% 24% 23% C 12% 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 23 ## Page 36 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 61% 63% B 20% 20% 20% C 24% 9% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% 4% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 24 ## Page 37 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 28% 51% 51% B 28% 24% 24% C 24% 11% 11% D 8% 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 8% 5% 6% Average 2.7 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 25 ## Page 38 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 62% 62% B 28% 21% 21% C 24% 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 26 ## Page 39 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 57% 58% B 24% 23% 23% C 12% 9% 9% D 8% 5% 4% Fail 8% 4% 3% No Grade 8% 2% 3% Average 2.9 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 27 ## Page 40 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being consistent in his/her behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 58% 58% 58% B 25% 22% 23% C 8% 9% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 28 ## Page 41 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 57% 59% B 20% 23% 23% C 16% 9% 9% D 12% 5% 4% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 8% 3% 3% Average 2.9 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 29 ## Page 42 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 60% 61% 62% B 28% 24% 23% C 4% 8% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 30 ## Page 43 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 44% 54% 53% B 20% 24% 24% C 8% 10% 10% D 8% 4% 4% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 16% 6% 6% Average 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 31 ## Page 44 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 44% 55% 56% B 16% 19% 17% C 8% 4% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 28% 20% 20% Average 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 32 ## Page 45 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 28% 51% 45% B 16% 18% 15% C 4% 5% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 48% 22% 33% Average 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 33 ## Page 46 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 36% 45% 47% B 16% 26% 25% C 12% 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 1% 2% No Grade 32% 15% 14% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 34 ## Page 47 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 38% 48% 48% B 13% 28% 28% C 13% 11% 11% D 8% 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 25% 6% 5% Average 2.9 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 35 ## Page 48 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for his/her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 44% 47% 47% B 8% 27% 27% C 12% 10% 11% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 32% 11% 9% Average 3.4 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 36 ## Page 49 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicatedand time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 36% 48% 47% B 24% 22% 22% C 4% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 32% 17% 17% Average 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 37 ## Page 50 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 28% 38% 37% B 8% 16% 16% C 4% 5% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 56% 37% 37% Average 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 38 ## Page 51 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Hansen is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 4% 3% 4 17% 3% 3% 3 6% 6% 2 42% 13% 12% 1 17% 18% 16% 8% 49% 49% -1 4% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 17% 1% 1% -4 1% 1% -5 0% 1% Average 1.2 0.8 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 39 ## Page 52 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Hansen are? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 9% 3% 2% 4 9% 3% 2% 3 9% 5% 5% 2 9% 9% 9% 1 27% 13% 12% 27% 59% 58% -1 4% 5% -2 2% 2% -3 2% 2% -4 0% 1% -5 9% 0% 1% Average 1.1 0.5 0.4 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 40 ## Page 53 Judge Karla J. Hansen Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 78% 73% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 11% 17% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 6% 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 6% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 41 ## Page 54 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.5 Overall Average 3.3 3.3 3.5 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.3 3.3 3.4 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.5 Q5. Overall Application 3.2 of Law 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 55 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.4 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.2 3.3 3.5 1a. Giving proceedings a 3.3 sense of dignity 3.4 3.5 1b. Treating participants 3.3 politely and with respect 3.4 3.5 1c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 3.2 manner 3.3 3.4 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.1 understanding 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 56 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.4 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.4 2a. Giving participants an 3.3 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.4 2b. Treating those involved 3.2 with the case without bias 3.2 3.4 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.2 represent themselves 3.3 3.5 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.3 case 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Karla J. Hansen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 57 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.6 Q3. Overall Communications 3.4 3.5 3.6 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.4 proceedings 3.4 3.6 3b. Using language that 3.4 everyone can understand 3.5 3.6 3c. Speaking clearly so 3.5 everyone can hear 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 58 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.5 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.2 3.6 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.4 4c. Setting reasonable 3.3 schedules for cases 3.3 3.7 4d. Being prepared for his or 3.3 her cases 3.4 3.6 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.3 little wasted time 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 59 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.5 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.2 3.2 3.5 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.2 3.6 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.2 outside pressure 3.2 3.4 5c. Being able to identify and 3.2 analyze relevant facts 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Karla J. Hansen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 60 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Hansen is toward the defense or prosecution? Karla J. Hansen 0.3 All County 0.2 Judges All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 61 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Hansen's sentences? Karla J. Hansen 0.1 All County 0 Judges All Trial Judges -0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 62 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 80% 75% 74% 72% 70% 67% 67% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 15% 14% 11%11% 11%11% 10%10% 10%10% 10%10% 9% 10% 6%6% 5%5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Hansen Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 63 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 64% 58% 60% B 26% 23% 23% C 4% 9% 8% D 1% 4% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 64 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 61% 63% B 22% 19% 19% C 5% 9% 8% D 1% 5% 4% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 4% 3% 2% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 65 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 68% 59% 61% B 20% 19% 18% C 2% 9% 8% D 1% 5% 4% Fail 5% 5% 5% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 66 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 62% 54% 56% B 20% 20% 20% C 6% 10% 9% D 2% 5% 4% Fail 5% 7% 6% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 67 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 60% 62% B 19% 21% 20% C 3% 7% 7% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 5% 5% 4% No Grade 5% 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 68 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 58% 60% B 25% 19% 18% C 2% 7% 7% D 4% 5% 4% Fail 4% 7% 7% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 69 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 51% 47% 45% B 14% 15% 14% C 5% 6% 5% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 4% 6% 5% No Grade 24% 23% 29% Average 3.4 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 70 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 57% 59% B 20% 20% 19% C 5% 8% 7% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 8% 7% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 71 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 63% 64% B 20% 20% 19% C 7% 8% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 72 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 63% 64% B 15% 21% 21% C 8% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 73 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 66% 66% B 14% 20% 20% C 7% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 74 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 50% 52% B 25% 25% 25% C 5% 11% 10% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 1% 5% 4% No Grade 4% 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 75 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 69% 63% 64% B 21% 22% 21% C 2% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 76 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 52% 48% 51% B 24% 23% 21% C 6% 8% 8% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 15% 15% 14% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 77 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being prepared for his or her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 64% 56% 58% B 19% 21% 19% C 2% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 4% No Grade 13% 9% 9% Average 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 78 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 53% 54% B 25% 25% 24% C 4% 10% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 5% 5% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 79 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 58% 52% 54% B 25% 20% 20% C 4% 9% 8% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 1% 6% 5% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 80 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 54% 48% 50% B 18% 17% 16% C 5% 7% 7% D 1% 4% 3% Fail 1% 6% 6% No Grade 21% 18% 18% Average 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 81 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Hansen on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 57% 53% 55% B 26% 19% 18% C 5% 8% 7% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 4% 6% 6% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 82 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Hansen is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 2% 4% 3% 4 2% 3% 2% 3 4% 2% 2% 2 3% 3% 1 8% 6% 6% 83% 68% 70% -1 4% 4% -2 2% 3% 3% -3 3% 2% -4 1% 2% -5 2% 2% Average 0.3 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 83 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Hansen are? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 2% 5% 4% 4 2% 3% 2% 3 3% 3% 2 2% 3% 3% 1 8% 4% 4% 77% 60% 62% -1 6% 7% -2 2% 6% 6% -3 6% 5% 5% -4 2% 2% -5 3% 2% Average 0.1 0.0 -0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 84 Judge Karla J. Hansen Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Hansen be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Hansen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 75% 72% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 15% 11% 11% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 6% 6% 5% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 4% 11% 11% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 85 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2004. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in November 2004, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2004 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 86 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 719 394 7 69 9 60.6% Attorney For Defendant 2,219 1,040 17 218 24 52.0% Guardian ad Litem 131 79 0 10 1 65.3% Unknown Attorney Type 5,378 2,170 56 751 88 46.9% Attorney Total 8,447 3,683 80 1,048 122 49.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 3,111 916 55 672 3 37.6% Employee 1,739 976 18 224 0 64.4% Defendant 12,171 1,620 148 2,439 27 16.6% Plaintiff 3,617 881 66 500 11 28.3% Juror 4,488 1,632 117 511 15 41.0% Victim 552 83 11 101 2 18.4% Other 1,650 222 25 373 8 17.4% Non-attorney Total 27,328 6,330 440 4,820 66 28.1% Total 35,775 10,013 520 5,868 188 33.5% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2004 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 87 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2004, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2004 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 88 Judge Karla J. Hansen Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 11 3 0 3 0 37.5% Attorney For Defendant 19 9 0 3 0 56.3% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type 46 13 0 16 0 43.3% Sub Total: 76 25 0 22 0 46.3% Defendant 152 13 3 25 0 10.2% Plaintiff 25 6 0 2 0 26.1% Law Enforcement 74 4 2 27 0 8.5% Employee 18 10 0 1 0 58.8% Juror 100 43 5 14 0 50.0% Victim 1 0 0 1 0 0.0% Other 40 9 1 10 0 30.0% Sub Total: 410 85 11 80 0 25.8% Grand Total: 486 110 11 102 0 28.6% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 89 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Attorney Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you do not have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK/ 1. Case Management: A B C D F NA a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. [District only] Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Diligence: a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Continued on Back] 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 90 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge _ in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _ ? _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 91 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you do not have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK/ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F NA a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 2. Fairness: a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Diligence: a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Application of Law: a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 6. [If you were in Judge _’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Other Side ## Page 92 7. [If you were in Judge _ ’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge _ as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what would you tell your friend about Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _? _ _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated.
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2004 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026